# Not paying tax on rental income-good idea?



## nelly (21 Feb 2007)

Recently I met someone who is renting two houses in an Irish city and never registered as a landlord. He thought i was crazy when i mentioned it. It  seems to me that he may not be declaring this income and had never been approched to register for rental allowance as the houses were rented to students who obviously did not look for these tax credits. 

What do you make of this? he has had the houses well over 10 years and could be walloped with an awful tax bill if they look into it. If they don't I'm thinking its not a bad game to get into myself instead of paying into a pension fund for the next 35 years...?


----------



## ClubMan (21 Feb 2007)

*Re: not paying tax on rental income.*



nelly said:


> What do you make of this? he has had the houses well over 10 years and could be walloped with an awful tax bill if they look into it.


*IF *he is evading tax then hopefully they will catch up with him sooner rather than later and extract the outstanding liabilities etc. out of him. Where tax evasion is *known *to be going on then there is an obvious way of helping to accelerate this process.


----------



## nelly (21 Feb 2007)

*Re: not paying tax on rental income.*

I woud not be the one to accelerate it to be honest as I don't know maybe he does pay tax on it. But if it is something the tax man turns a blind eye to it seems like a nice little venture.


----------



## CCOVICH (21 Feb 2007)

*Re: not paying tax on rental income.*



nelly said:


> But if it is something the tax man turns a blind eye to it seems like a nice little venture.


 
Maybe they have in the past.  Will this continue in the future?  Who knows.  You don't pays your tax, you takes your chances.......


----------



## nelly (21 Feb 2007)

*Re: not paying tax on rental income.*

yep - i couldn't take the chance! alarm bells were deafening me the more i thought of it! Ignorence of the tax system is no defence either.


----------



## Purple (21 Feb 2007)

*Re: not paying tax on rental income.*

Speaking as a former landlord if your friend is evading tax (stealing from the people of Ireland) then I hope he gets caught and heavily penalised. I do not understand why people think this is acceptable. We are spending tens or hundreds of millions of Euros investigating tax evasion and corruption by some politicians and property developers. I find that the same people who are vociferous in their criticism of these activities are ambivalent about tax evasion by "normal people" like small scale landlords, builders, trades-people doing nixers and teachers giving grinds etc. 
The bottom line is if your friend  chooses to engage in a criminal activity it may well turn out to be a "nice little earner" but I for one hope he is done for it.


----------



## ClubMan (21 Feb 2007)

*Re: not paying tax on rental income.*

Examples of _Revenue _catching up with crooks:

Revenue acts on abuse of stamp duty relief
Bogus non resident account investigations


----------



## Newby (21 Feb 2007)

*Re: not paying tax on rental income.*

I like this one, being a numbers man myself...

[broken link removed]


----------



## Luternau (21 Feb 2007)

*Re: not paying tax on rental income.*



nelly said:


> I woud not be the one to accelerate it to be honest as I don't know maybe he does pay tax on it. But if it is something the tax man turns a blind eye to it seems like a nice little venture.


 
You -and every other tax payer are paying for this. It has been stated that if all black economy was stamped out it would equate to a 3-4% reduction in taxes. Your aquaintance is part of this black economy-Revenue do not tolerate this and neither should any citizen. Its pure greed and selfishness not to pay taxes that are due to the state. Quite rightfully Revenue are clamping down on this and receiveing lots of money into the exchequer.


----------



## madisona (21 Feb 2007)

*Re: not paying tax on rental income.*

A lot of landlords pay no tax on rental income and are not worried about being caught. The governments true position on this issue can be ascertained by looking at the rent allowance scheme . This is a scheme whereby large amounts of taxpayers money is paid to landlords. However there is no requirement for a landlord to either register with the PRTB or pay tax before they receive their state handouts. The revenue has tried repeatedly over the years to get the government to give it details of which landlords it is paying money to and how much it is giving them for tax assessment purposes. The government has refused. For the government to then say that landlords "should" pay tax on rental income is stunning hypocrisy.


----------



## ClubMan (21 Feb 2007)

*Re: not paying tax on rental income.*



madisona said:


> The revenue has tried repeatedly over the years to get the government to give it details of which landlords it is paying money to and how much it is giving them for tax assessment purposes. The government has refused.


Do you actually mean "the government" here or a specific organisation such as _Social Welfare _or the _HSE _or something? 


> For the government to then say that landlords should pay tax on rental income is stunning hypocrisy.


 But this doesn't make it hypocritical for compliant taxpayers to complain about the genuine rip-off of tax evasion though.


----------



## madisona (21 Feb 2007)

*Re: not paying tax on rental income.*



ClubMan said:


> Do you actually mean "the government" here or a specific organisation such as _Social Welfare _or the _HSE _or something?
> But this doesn't make it hypocritical for compliant taxpayers to complain about the genuine rip-off of tax evasion though.


 
I mean the HSE but they get the money from the government who gets it from the taxpayer ( who is unlikely to be a landlord) 

I never said that it did, but the ire of compliant taxpayers should be directed as much towards the politicians that facilitate tax evasion as the landlords. Many PAYE taxpayers would similarly evade tax if the government was as accomadating to them


----------



## ClubMan (21 Feb 2007)

*Re: not paying tax on rental income.*



madisona said:


> I mean the HSE but they get the money from the government who gets it from the taxpayer ( who is unlikely to be a landlord)


But the specific issue then is that the _HSE _can't/won't pass the necessary info on to _Revenue_ presumably? Perhaps there is a data protection/privacy issue here?


> but the ire of compliant taxpayers should be directed as much towards the politicians that facilitate tax evasion as the landlords.


 I strongly disagree. While there may be something further that the government can do to address this situation the main/ultimate culpability for tax evasion lies with the perpetrator of the evasion and to attribute blame elsewhere is fallacious in my opinion.


> Many PAYE taxpayers would similarly evade tax if the government was as accomadating to them


 And they would be just as cuplable as any other tax evader.


----------



## nelly (21 Feb 2007)

*Re: not paying tax on rental income.*



madisona said:


> Many PAYE taxpayers would similarly evade tax if the government was as accomadating to them



and if there was no fear of getting caught and having to repay this. which was my origional point.
Having been in college for 4 years a while ago now I never saw a rent book and in some places only bank draft or cash was acceptable. When it is cheaper/ convienient location/ only place about  then it is going to be taken no questions. So i suppose i probably already have condoned evasion of tax. 
which is why i am perplexed that Revenue have not clamped down.


----------



## Glenbhoy (21 Feb 2007)

*Re: not paying tax on rental income.*



Luternau said:


> You -and every other tax payer are paying for this. It has been stated that if all black economy was stamped out it would equate to a 3-4% reduction in taxes.


I'm no fan of tax evaders, but i don't believe this for one second - politicians find ways of blowing whatever revenues they have available, sure we'd just go out and give the Roches an extra 500m for the toll bridge or something!!


----------



## madisona (21 Feb 2007)

*Re: not paying tax on rental income.*



ClubMan said:


> But the specific issue then is that the _HSE _can't/won't pass the necessary info on to _Revenue_ presumably? Perhaps there is a data protection/privacy issue here?
> I strongly disagree. While there may be something further that the government can do to address this situation the main/ultimate culpability for tax evasion lies with the perpetrator of the evasion and to attribute blame elsewhere is fallacious in my opinion.
> And they would be just as cuplable as any other tax evader.


 
There is no data protection/privacy issue. Fianna Fail tried that excuse when they were challenged on the matter and it was comprehensively debunked.  It would be very easy for the government to make payment of tax by a landlord a condition of giving them the money. or to tell the HSE that they would not get the money unless they allowed Revenue to see who it was being given to. 

and while I agree that ultimate culpability is with the tax evader I am personnaly more outraged that the government is blatantely facilitating this evasion. The only valid reason for the governments decision to withold this information from the Revenue is to facilitate tax evasion, therefore statements from government politicians that landlords "should" pay tax are hypocritical nonsense. The same by the ways goes for registration with the PRTB. On the one hand they say it is the law and on the other hand they refuse to make it a requirement of receiving rent allowance payments.


----------



## Luternau (21 Feb 2007)

*Re: not paying tax on rental income.*



> they get the money from the government who gets it from the taxpayer ( who is unlikely to be a landlord)


I refute that-I am a landlord and always pay my taxes. As for registration of tenancies-this is now compulsary. So if a landlord has not done this, and is not paying tax they are coommiting two misdemeanors. People that pay rent to a landlord that does not provide their tax details is only aiding this evasion. I would shop my landlord if that was the case.
Private Rental in Ireland is a growing reality. The sooner the government regulate the whole thing the better. I lved in Swtitzerland for a while and 80% rent. The system is the fairest I have ever witnessed and there is no evasion of taxes in Switz-its just not possible to do so!


----------



## madisona (21 Feb 2007)

*Re: not paying tax on rental income.*



Luternau said:


> I refute that-I am a landlord and always pay my taxes. As for registration of tenancies-this is now compulsary. So if a landlord has not done this, and is not paying tax they are coommiting two misdemeanors. People that pay rent to a landlord that does not provide their tax details is only aiding this evasion. I would shop my landlord if that was the case.


 
then you are in the minority of landlords that does. Of course registration and payment of tax is compulsary. Then why is it the the case that the majority of landlords pay no tax and are not registered and that they do this with impunity. They are well aware that Revenue will not come after them. I don't think that you can blame it on tenants either. They often have to take what they can get. As only a small minority of landlords bother registering their tenancies they would be severly restricting their  options.


----------



## ClubMan (21 Feb 2007)

*Re: not paying tax on rental income.*



madisona said:


> then you are in the minority of landlords that does.


Do you have any facts to back that up?


----------



## Purple (21 Feb 2007)

*Re: not paying tax on rental income.*

I take great exception to your comments madisona. I pay and have always paid my taxes and I was a landlord for 7 years. I know two other landlords and they always pay their taxes. Your opinion is ill informed and your comments are offensive. They betray a bias that if directed toward an ethnic group, rather than what you perceive as an economic one, would be considered racist.


----------



## Luternau (21 Feb 2007)

*Re: not paying tax on rental income.*



> then you are in the minority of landlords that does.


 
I dont think you have a clue about this subject. Most landlords pay tax.
Perhaps you are confusing legally paying no tax-but making a tax return (through gearing, tax breaks etc,) with paying no tax by not making a return at all-or an improper return-otherwise known as tax evasion.
The former is legal-once you stay within the law, and the latter is illegal.


----------



## Glenbhoy (22 Feb 2007)

*Re: not paying tax on rental income.*

Madisona,
more anecdotal evidence, i do know a lot of landlords, and i do not know any who don't pay the tax due on this income - yeah they may fiddle around a little re what exactly should have been classified as repairs and what should be capitalised, but they still pay.


----------



## gipimann (22 Feb 2007)

*Re: not paying tax on rental income.*

In reply to earlier posters who asked about Rent supplement, landlord details and the amount of supplement paid to them (or their tenants) is sent by HSE/Dept of Social & Family Affairs to Revenue each year.  This has happened for the past 3 years.  
Obviously it's up to Revenue to act on the information they receive.


----------



## ClubMan (22 Feb 2007)

*Re: not paying tax on rental income.*



gipimann said:


> In reply to earlier posters who asked about Rent supplement, landlord details and the amount of supplement paid to them (or their tenants) is sent by HSE/Dept of Social & Family Affairs to Revenue each year.  This has happened for the past 3 years.
> Obviously it's up to Revenue to act on the information they receive.


So this directly contradicts what madisona said earlier?


----------



## liteweight (22 Feb 2007)

*Re: not paying tax on rental income.*

I also take offence at your statement madisona. I am a landlady, am registered with PRTB and pay my taxes on time, every time!


----------



## gipimann (22 Feb 2007)

*Re: not paying tax on rental income.*



ClubMan said:


> So this directly contradicts what madisona said earlier?


 
Yes it does.

The relevant legislation is Section 888, Consolidated Taxes Act,
1997. This legislation provides that the following information
may be requested by the Revenue Commissioners from Health
Boards (now the HSE), Local Authorities or any body paying a rental subsidy

* Address of each rented property in which rent supplement is/was paid
* Name and address of the person to whom the property belongs
* Statement of all rent supplements paid
* Other particulars which may be specified.

The act itself may be read on [broken link removed]


----------



## ClubMan (22 Feb 2007)

*Re: not paying tax on rental income.*

Thanks for that info. Maybe _madisona _can explain the earlier comments so?


----------



## Dreamerb (22 Feb 2007)

*Re: not paying tax on rental income.*



ClubMan said:


> Thanks for that info. Maybe _madisona _can explain the earlier comments so?


Perhaps an expectation that the good people of AAM will accept assertion as fact without question?  

*sticking my hand up as another member of that alleged minority of PRTB registered tax compliant landlord types*


----------



## Newby (22 Feb 2007)

*Re: not paying tax on rental income.*



ClubMan said:


> Thanks for that info. Maybe _madisona _can explain the earlier comments so?


Not agreeing with madisona (due to my being yet another member of the tax abiding landlord brigade) but the comments stated that Revenue may request the info. If Revenue don't request the info then HSE (or whoever) don't have to provide the info.

Mind you they should do it anyway out of good practice...


----------



## gipimann (22 Feb 2007)

Newby, believe me, the legislation may allow revenue to "request" the information, but when they came calling to HSE, it was more of an order!  

The info is transmitted electronically every year, in Jan/Feb.


----------



## ClubMan (22 Feb 2007)

*Re: not paying tax on rental income.*



Newby said:


> Not agreeing with madisona (due to my being yet another member of the tax abiding landlord brigade) but the comments stated that Revenue may request the info. If Revenue don't request the info then HSE (or whoever) don't have to provide the info.


But madisona said:


> The revenue has tried repeatedly over the years to get the government to give it details of which landlords it is paying money to and how much it is giving them for tax assessment purposes. The government has refused.


 and


> The only valid reason for the governments decision to withold this information from the Revenue is to facilitate tax evasion


 both of which are contradicted by _gipimann's _comments and sources above. And I also just realised how sweeping the second comment is now!


----------



## Newby (22 Feb 2007)

Fair enough lads (ClubMan & Gipimann). The only point I was making was that the tax law says that Revenue must request it first. If Revenue has requested the info then under tax law they must be provided with the info (per Gipi's reference to the Taxes Acts). 

Incidentally, how do ye guys know that the info has been requested. I have no idea if that sort of info is in the public domain but I don't remember reading about it (completely open to correction as too busy to check now).


----------



## ClubMan (22 Feb 2007)

Newby said:


> Incidentally, how do ye guys know that the info has been requested.


I never said that it was. _madisona _did and claimed that the request was rebuffed or blocked by the _Government_. _gipimann _also seems to suggest that the information was requested and that it was provided.


----------



## Dreamerb (22 Feb 2007)

Newby said:


> Incidentally, how do ye guys know that the info has been requested. I have no idea if that sort of info is in the public domain but I don't remember reading about it (completely open to correction as too busy to check now).


Well, Gipimann knows because of working in the area (public profiles have their uses!). And I imagine it's one of those things that's public domain but about which there's not a huge amount of discussion, so not necessarily easy to find out via casual web searches and the like. Probably just one of the many things one doesn't know until affected or a practitioner.


----------



## madisona (22 Feb 2007)

"All property is theft" _Proudhon_

"Those that Buy and Sell Land, and are landlords, have got it either by Oppression, or Murder, or Theft" _The Levellers Manifesto_



O dear. I seem to have ruffled a few feathers. Let me try to respond. Firstly my previous posts were mostly based on half remembered things I had read or heard over the years. I would also be ideologically left leaning and think that there is nothing too wrong with sometimes playing devils advocate to stimulate debate, although I should have  done a bit of research before making generalised statements that were probably true a few years ago but may not still be applicable today. I seem to have made some incorrect statements of fact which I retract. 

I lived in several rented properties in the past and never once had a tenancy agreement, rent book or got a receipt. I checked recently on a few of my old landlords and none of them are on the PRTB online register. My opinion of landlords in general is also probably coloured by the not untypical experience of having deposits not returned for no reason and the inability in the past to do anything about it (legally).

I do not know how many landlords pay tax although I would now accept that it is probable that the majority do today. Would it be reasonable to assume that any landlord paying tax is probably also registered with the PRTB and also that not every registered landlord pays tax? In 2005 there were about 80,000 properties registered although there are estimated to be at least 170,000 rental properties in the state 

In 2003, 60,000 declared rental income (although not all paid tax on it), the only figure I could find, which would seem to indicate a certain level of tax evasion. I do not know whether that figure is higher for 2006 and if it is whether enforcement by the Revenue is responsible.

Is an attack on landlords racist? I think that the word racist is used much too frequently these days as a way to stifle discussion and debate. I would consider politicians, landlords, lawyers, estate agents and other privileged groups in our society as well able to defend themselves. I also do not quite see how saying that some landlords evade tax is an attack on landlords that do pay. Saying that some Irishmen abuse children, beat their wives or kill people is not an attack on me even though I am Irish and a man. 


Regarding the sharing of information with Revenue on rent allowance payments to landlords I remembered a discussion on the issue from a few years ago and assumed that it was still the case that payment details were not passed on. (the justification given by the Fianna Fail politician at the time was that landlords would be far less likely to accept RA tenants if by doing so they brought themselves to the attention of Revenue) It seems that this is no longer the case and I was incorrect in stating that it was. I am fairly sure however that registration with the PTRB is still not checked before payments are made


----------



## ClubMan (22 Feb 2007)

madisona said:


> In 2005 there were about 80,000 properties registered although there are estimated to be at least 170,000 rental properties in the state
> 
> In 2003, 60,000 declared rental income



Just curious about where you got these figures from? I presume the 80,000 figure is from the most recent _PRTB _annual report online? What about the others?


----------



## madisona (23 Feb 2007)

"According to tenants rights group Threshold, four out of five landlords are not registered for tax purposes at the moment.....Latest figures showed 60,200 individuals and 4,300 companies are declaring rental income on their tax returns. "

_Examiner June 06, 2003_
[broken link removed]


"According to the 2002 census, there was 141,459 households living in private rented accommodation."
[broken link removed]


----------



## ClubMan (23 Feb 2007)

madisona said:


> "According to tenants rights group Threshold, four out of five landlords are not registered for tax purposes at the moment.....Latest figures showed 60,200 individuals and 4,300 companies are declaring rental income on their tax returns. "


But where did *they *get the figures from?


> "According to the 2002 census, there was 141,459 households living in private rented accommodation."


 There isn't necessarily a one to one mapping between rental properties and renting households. Lots of individual rental properties could contain more than one household. The 80,000 properties mentioned as registered above could well cover 140K  households couldn't they?


----------



## Seagull (23 Feb 2007)

madisona said:


> "According to tenants rights group Threshold, four out of five landlords are not registered for tax purposes at the moment.....Latest figures showed 60,200 individuals and 4,300 companies are declaring rental income on their tax returns. "





madisona said:


> In 2005 there were about 80,000 properties registered although there are estimated to be at least 170,000 rental properties in the state


 
These two statements do not add up. As of 2005, you have 80,000 registered properties with an estimated 170,000 rental properties. At worst, that makes it about 1 in 2 landlords not registered. Your figures show 64,500 tax returns with rental tax. Based on the fact that a number of the individuals paying rental tax are likely to have more than one rental property, and the companies are unlikely to have only one, I would imagine there are significantly more than 64,500 properties represented in those tax returns.


----------



## casiopea (23 Feb 2007)

Hi Madisona,

First of all fair dues to you on coming back into the debate to address all the questions and for acknowledging some statements were made in error and not just leaving them out there.



madisona said:


> I would consider politicians, landlords, lawyers, estate agents and other privileged groups in our society as well able to defend themselves.



I just want to address the above statement.  There was a time when that statement would be true but in this day and age when property prices are so high and people are  so heavily mortgaged it no longer, imo, applies.  Yes, I know there are rich faceless landlords out there with innumerable properties I am not talking about them, I am talking about the new generation of landlords many of whom need to supplement rent with their own money to meet repayments.  They have a choice they can bow out if it gets too much and sell (which is what I did - former landlady, prtb member, rent tax payer) but it still doesnt mean we should be bundled into a group with politicians!

In regarding to the "defend themselves" statement, there is surprisingly little (I am tempted to say no) protection out there for landlords.  PRTB member or not (hopefull this will change).  If your tenants destroy your property, stop paying rent, there is nothing you can do to "defend yourself".  If they squat you have to go to the high court to get them out and they (not the landlord) are protected by squatters rights. More importantly there is nothing you can do to protect other landlords from accepting these thieves (no other word for that type of tenant).  The references they provide can be easily falsied and the deposit rarely covers the damage.  Its the tenant that has the power (and therefore, if anybody, be in the group with the politicians!) and the landlord that needs support in "defending themselves".  

On that point, in those properties you rented without contract/rent book why didnt you insist on a contract?  That is all you have to do. As a tenant it was your right all you had to do was exercise it.

Just my 2c, apologies if Ive taken this slightly off thread.


----------



## Purple (23 Feb 2007)

madisona said:


> I would consider politicians, landlords, lawyers, estate agents and other privileged groups in our society as well able to defend themselves.


 On that point, just because someone can defend himself or herself it does not make it OK to make scurrilous generalisations about them.


----------



## ClubMan (23 Feb 2007)

Whatever about being OK or not such comments are certainly not conducive to mature and reasoned discussion of the issue.


----------



## Dreamerb (23 Feb 2007)

There are a number of additional issues to take into account on the various numbers quoted. While there may be only 60k or so landlords registered for tax, it's worth recalling not only that some properties are in multiple units (have lived in many such), but also that the single-investment-property buy-to-let landlord is a relative newcomer in large numbers, and very many long-standing landlords have a number of properties. I'd venture an opinion - albeit an opinion only - that 60 thousand tax paying landlords probably represent the majority both of rental properties and of landlords. 

I also know of some landlords who have no problem with paying tax but who refuse to register with the PRTB. While not condoning their non-compliance, it doesn't mean that they're non-compliant in all areas. Further, the PRTB's data collection isn't good and is unreliable in unit-counting where a landlord is registering multiple properties or properties in multiple units - so while registration has been disappointing it may not be quite as bad as it looks.

There's no doubt in my mind however, that major reforms are required throughout the property sector, whether it's regulation of selling agents, simplification of conveyancing procedures, regulation of mangement companies and agents, better enforcement of (hopefully more rigorous) building standards, monitoring of rental accommodation quality or regulation of landlords (including local authorities with housing responsibilities). There is a general principle that regulation should be appropriate and proportionate, and as the matter stands, there are a huge number of agencies with responsibilities and significant regulatory gaps... chasms, in some cases. 

I for one would welcome the opportunity to have my rental property inspected between tenancies to ensure it's up to code - and if this were to happen and prospective tenants could ask to see your inspection score it might do a bit to drive the slum-creating ones out of business (though this will really work only if there's a consistent over-supply). I'd also love to see a one-stop-shop where I can get everything done easily and, to the degree possible, online. So far I can pay my taxes that way (though I haven't!), but PRTB registration is cumbersome and paper-based, and inspections are almost non-existent.


----------



## ClubMan (23 Feb 2007)

Dreamerb said:


> While there may be only 60k or so landlords registered for tax, it's worth recalling not only that some properties are in multiple units (have lived in many such)


I did mention that earlier.


----------



## Dreamerb (23 Feb 2007)

ClubMan said:


> I did mention that earlier.


I interpreted that as referring _only_ to individual properties in multiple _units _(hence the "not only", referring back to your point) rather than the further issue I included regarding landlords with multiple _properties. _I do - at least mostly - read before responding!


----------



## madisona (23 Feb 2007)

Was merely looking for something to back up earlier assertion that many landlords pay no tax, which was based on anecdotal evidence and past experience. Part of the reason for so doing was the lack of figures
I would also not know how to interpret the figures in that article and they seem to contradict each other. In the same article where it says that there were 64,500 rental returns (revenue apparently) it also says that 40,000 landlords are registered for tax (from IPOA) and that only one in five landlords pay tax(Threshold) I would take the point that many landlords would have more than one property and that 64,000 returns could well represent say 120,000 properties. 


So how many rental properties are there. How many rental households, How many of these are registered. How many landlords pay tax. How much evasion is there. How proactively does Revenue pursue landlords that evade tax? 
Bottom line. I have no idea how many landlords pay tax today.


Regarding legal protection I would be of the view that the protection should be given more to the tenants that the landlords. For one it is a home, for the other a business. I have lived in other countries there was security of tenure and legal protections for both parties, where people saw no problem with renting for life. The situation in Ireland was totally different. Practically no security of tenure or protection from unscrupulous or exploitative landlords and I would guess that this is not unrelated to the Irish desire to own. Btw this situation as far as I can see has not changed that much. A landlord can easily decide to evict a long term tenant with a few weeks notice. He merely has to say that he “intends” to sell the property. Also in answer to a previous post, there are no squatters rights in Ireland (unless someone occupys a property without paying rent for something like 12 years)and eviction usually requires just 4 weeks notice. I have also in the past seen evictions where someone gets back to their home to find the locks changed and their belongings thrown out in the rain. 


I would also accept that there are now many amateur landlords, those that have bought an “investment” property in the hope of making money down the line on capital appreciation, that many such landlords are struggling to meet mortgage payments, that they are registered, pay tax and treat their tenants properly, that they can sometimes be stung by such tenants not paying rent or wrecking their properties.

I wouldn’t accept that my generalizations about tax avoidance by a class of people were necessarily scurrilous or that there was no truth in them. All generalizations admit exceptions. E.g. politicians are crooks; lawyers will rip you off, limerick people like using knives. Cork people have an inferiority complex and a chip on their shoulders. I would not however make similar derogatory generalizations about those that may not be is a position to defend themselves or their interests or who would be imo hurt and offended by such generalizations. e.g the homeless, mentally disabled, ethnic minorities etc


----------



## Dreamerb (23 Feb 2007)

I'd trust Revenue, who do know what they're talking about. The IPOA I wouldn't trust at all and on principle I'm not a member - they've been lobbying against tenants' rights for years, and I have a serious problem with that. I am in broad agreement with Threshold's aims, but they're prone to unbased assertion so I wouldn't trust them when they're in rant mode (which is for quite a lot of their public pronouncements!). 

There's a balance to be struck in relation to rights for tenants and landlords, and I agree there's a major point - and possibly one not often enough made or acknowledged - in the fact that it's the home of the one, but just the business of the other. As I see it, tenant protections work disproportionately for unscrupulous / anti-social tenants but don't sufficiently protect run of the mill decent tenants against unscrupulous landlords.

I wouldn't be so extra gentle with the amateur landlords either, if I were arguing your case. No-one should buy in if they don't do the sums and a reasonable level of stress testing, and vet tenants, and in general take their responsibilities seriously. Any landlord stung by tenants wrecking the place is disadvantaged in their business and investment - whether they're "amateur" or "professional" shouldn't make that much difference.


----------



## ClubMan (23 Feb 2007)

Interesting evolution of your views in this thread... 


madisona said:


> A lot of landlords pay no tax on rental income and are not worried about being caught.





madisona said:


> then you are in the minority of landlords that does.





madisona said:


> I do not know how many landlords pay tax although I would now accept that it is probable that the majority do today.





madisona said:


> Bottom line. I have no idea how many landlords pay tax today.


----------



## Newby (23 Feb 2007)

ClubMan said:


> Interesting evolution of your views in this thread...



CM, in a former life you must have been my English teacher...  

IMHO, given the amount of posters on AAM that have asked questions about stamp duty and whether or not the clawback exist, one might be forgiven for thinking that there are some people who are being a bit "cute" about their taxes in relation to property. Doesn't mean all landlords are at it though!


----------



## sunrock (23 Feb 2007)

OF course landlords pay as little tax, if any,that they think they`ll get away with.When one considers the extremes that peaople went to to avoid paying tax such as bogus non resident a/cs and a whole array of legal measures that the rich employ......it is no great surprise that landlords can avoid tax....after all it is a cash buisness and many "expenses" can offset the tax.
Maybe it was o.k. before as rents were small...but surely now as even landlords with ..say 2 semi-detached 3 bed houses....charging 100e a room and converting the sitting room to an extra bedroom...thus clearing 400e a week or 20,000e a year per house.....are raking in serious money.
Revenue officers should target this huge rental income, where tax is avoided on a collosal scale.Maybe our government could divert resoucres from tackling small scale benefit fraud and go after the serious money.


----------



## casiopea (26 Feb 2007)

madisona said:


> Regarding legal protection I would be of the view that the protection should be given more to the tenants that the landlords. For one it is a home, for the other a business.



Why shouldnt both be entitled to protection? Just because its a business does not mean the landlord can afford to be ripped off, robbed or whatever evil possesses the tenant.  



madisona said:


> I have lived in other countries there was security of tenure and legal protections for both parties, where people saw no problem with renting for life. The situation in Ireland was totally different. Practically no security of tenure or protection from unscrupulous or exploitative landlords and I would guess that this is not unrelated to the Irish desire to own.



I have lived in other countries and currently live in switzerland and was both a tenant and a landlord in Ireland.  Ireland is the only country Ive lived in where there is little or no protection for the landlord and only protection for the tenant.  You talk about exploitative landlords but you dont give any examples? I am not saying there arent bad landlords, there are. There are "bad" people  in all walks of life (including tenants) but the tenant has protection.  It is a tenants right to insist on contract, in fairness if you dont you are waiving a lot of your rights.



madisona said:


> Btw this situation as far as I can see has not changed that much. A landlord can easily decide to evict a long term tenant with a few weeks notice. He merely has to say that he “intends” to sell the property.



Again, not accurate. Under PRTB this is not the case. I evicted a tenant last year for exactly that reason.  I had to give 52 days notice per PRTB as she was in the property more than a year (eventhough she had stopped paying rent, she was protected I was not).  The longer the tenant stays in the property the longer the notice.



madisona said:


> Also in answer to a previous post, there are no squatters rights in Ireland (unless someone occupys a property without paying rent for something like 12 years)and eviction usually requires just 4 weeks notice.



I assumed it was squattors right that protected these tenants, they certainly werent in the property 12 years.  Parents of a friend of mine rented a house in donnybrook to a lawyer and his wife (quite a high profile) opera singer.  They paid rent for a little over a year. Then they stopped. They changed locks wouldnt open doors.  When the landlord called over wasnt let in.  Answered solicitors letters with solicitors letters.  This family had to bring the tenants to the high court to get them out.  From the time theyd stopped paying rent they remained in the property for a further 18months as this slowly went through the courts.  My friend said that as a lawyer he knew exactly when to stop paying rent and at what point he was protected by his tenancy rights (it was only just after a year).  I assumed thats squattors rights but its probably another right.  When they eventually got this pair out they had destroyed the house (grafitti even on all the walls) and even more upsetting were renting another house in ballsbridge within the month.  This cost this family an absolute fortune in bills but even more in worry and health problems (brought on by stress).


Madisona, from reading your posts its seems (apologies if Im wrong but you do come across like this) that you are not nor ever have been a landlord.  That you have been a tenant and have had or have known people who have had rotten landlords.  I feel you are not seeing the whole picture. For my part Ive been both and have had both.  While I once had a rotten landlord I did have a contract (which I insisted on) and which I took out at every meeting (few though they were) as  a landlord Id no such protection.  My contracts were ignored, my house destroyed, rent unpaid - calls ignored etc.  There is no protection.

All landlords should register with PRTB, all landlords should pay tax.  But all landlords should get basic protection for that tax being paid and if they did, maybe more landlords would be registering with the likes of PRTB.


----------



## ClubMan (26 Feb 2007)

sunrock said:


> OF course landlords pay as little tax, if any,that they think they`ll get away with.When one considers the extremes that peaople went to to avoid paying tax such as bogus non resident a/cs and a whole array of legal measures that the rich employ......it is no great surprise that landlords can avoid tax....after all it is a cash buisness and many "expenses" can offset the tax.
> Maybe it was o.k. before as rents were small...but surely now as even landlords with ..say 2 semi-detached 3 bed houses....charging 100e a room and converting the sitting room to an extra bedroom...thus clearing 400e a week or 20,000e a year per house.....are raking in serious money.
> Revenue officers should target this huge rental income, where tax is avoided on a collosal scale.Maybe our government could divert resoucres from tackling small scale benefit fraud and go after the serious money.


I presume that each occurrence of "avoid" above should have been "evade"?


----------



## madisona (26 Feb 2007)

casiopea said:


> _Again, not accurate. Under PRTB this is not the case. I evicted a tenant last year for exactly that reason. I had to give 52 days notice per PRTB as she was in the property more than a year (eventhough she had stopped paying rent, she was protected I was not). The longer the tenant stays in the property the longer the notice_.


 
I think "a few weeks" is accurate. I assume that 52 days is for more than 2 years 

*Eviction notice required to terminate a tenancy that has lasted between six months and two years *

Less than 6 months 28 days

6 or more months but less than 1 year 35 days

1 year or more but less than 2 years 42 days

Nope. I've never been a landlord and my opinions are to an extent based on my experiences of them in the past.


----------



## casiopea (26 Feb 2007)

Sorry typo, it was 42 days not 52 days notice I gave her. Just to reiterate that is 42 days notice to someone who wasnt paying rent.  42 days is still 6 weeks not a couple of weeks. Again, she (the tenant) was protected me (the landlord) was not.

Madisona, why dont you think Landlords are entitled to protection as well as tenants?  Surely it is in a tenants interest as well?  If the PRTB were to more strongly regulate both landlords and tenants then both parties would be happy. Ideally in this model properties would have to be to a certain standard, rents can only go up to a certain amount.  Should this occur Ireland could become more of a successful rental society which would be in the interest of tenants given that houses are over priced currently.


----------



## madisona (26 Feb 2007)

Strong regulations and the enforcement of them would serve the interests of responsible tenants and landlords. My advocacy of protection for tenants does not in any way mean that landlords should not also be given protection from tenants  that would seek to abuse their position.


----------



## RainyDay (26 Feb 2007)

Two quick points;

- Any half-decent accountant will be able to legally whittle down any landlord's tax bill to next to nothing, given our current tax regime which gives unlimited mortgage interest tax relief to landlords (by comparison with the fairly low limit of relief given to residential purchasers)
- All it takes is 1 tenant to claim their rental tax relief for the Revenue to have a strong indication of the existance of a rental property.


----------

