# Non Principal Private Residence Tax - Late Payment Extortion



## jdpl28

So it turns out the government decided an uncapped 120% interest rate on the NPPR charge was suitable - compared to say a capped at 130 euro fee on the household charges - either cause they thought they could get away with it or cause of just general incompetence (“never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”, and all that...).

For us living abroad - they decided that even though there was no possible way we could know about the tax, we still needed to pay along with late fees accrued. I’ve just had to fork over 2240 euro - primarily made up of late charges.

Nobody seems to care either - they just say ‘well, its in the legislation, end of story’. 

The Irish times recently had an article on this - '[broken link removed]" , along with a number of letters by people in similar situations.

The NPPR late payment trap



Would really appreciate that if anyone else was stung by this shakedown, can they add their comments to above article? I very much doubt it was just a few of us.


----------



## Palerider

You have a fair enough point of view I think but it is very marginal, owning property in any part of the world brings responsibilities, had you advice or help with submission of your annual tax returns, if so your advisor should have pointed this out, if you assumed that responsibility yourself then you assumed it and you should have picked this up, being absent does not negate your responsibility on keeping an eye on what is happening with your property investment at home.


----------



## jdpl28

I had a tax advisor - doing my taxes for the year. She said as it was council tax it was not her department, so she neglected to tell me about it.

I had an estate agent looking after my house - she 'thought' I knew about it already.

I had the county council looking for the money. They said they put sufficient ads in the local & national media to cover the issue. They also said that they put ads in media in centers of high Irish population overseas (I'm in Malaysia, so that was not covered).

What should have been done I feel is:
* Letters dropped into each house that could be applicable. I was registered for the PRTB - that would have been a good place to start with that.
* A late penalty that is capped. Why do they think 120% interest is required here? Interest rate that high is extortionate, what you would expect from a money lender, and quite frankly just plain sleazy.


----------



## SarahMc

I think your beef here should be with your Tax Advisor, not the Government. I think it's appalling that you had a Tax Advisor looking after your interests and they did not advise you of this.


----------



## Luternau

I had sympathy for you on reading your first post. However, your second post gives a more balanced account of what happened. As you say '  cause of just general incompetence (“never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”, and all that...).

That lies right at your accountant and to a lesser extent, your letting agent. So, you really should focus your anger on these. Change accountants and letting agents before they leave you with more tax bills or uncollected rents for months.


----------



## emeralds

SarahMc said:


> I think your beef here should be with your Tax Advisor, not the Government. I think it's appalling that you had a Tax Advisor looking after your interests and they did not advise you of this.



Totally agree. A tax advisor who did not understand what the NPPR was and the implications of not paying it, is not worth paying!


----------



## elcato

I would suggest you write a cheque for the amount outstanding without penalties and a cover letter to your county council and ask them to accept this as final payment. Explain the circumstances and see what happens. They may accept this but keep any documents in case of problems later i.e in case of sale.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

> *What's a "late payment fee"?            *
> 
> 
> The  Act provides that, if a charge is not paid within a month after the  last date for payment, a late payment fee will apply for every month or  part of month that the €200 charge remains unpaid. For 2009, this means  that the late payment fee will apply to all payments made after 31st  October 2009 and for 2010 and subsequent years it will apply to all  payments after 30th June of that year. The late payment fee amounts to  €20 per month or part of a month and will continue to roll up as long as  the charge remains unpaid and the amount involved can be substantial.


Wow! I had not appreciated this at all. So if you should have paid €200 on 31 October 2009 but didn't pay it until June 2013, you would have been charged an extra €840  (42 x €20) 

I suspect that this would be open to a court challenge. Fines must be proportionate.  Something like a €100 late payment fee and 1% per month would be appropriate enough. You might get a pro-bono SC's opinion on this from Ross Maguire of [broken link removed]


----------



## Brendan Burgess

You could claim 

Hardship


----------



## jdpl28

Thanks Brendan - thats an interesting read.

What flabbergasts me the more I look into it is the lengths they have to go to to get around the original extortionate late payment penalty. The big long web page they had to put together for this, all the 'apparent' ads they put in the media for it, a whole load of memos & rules like this hardship policy letter.

I would just love to know the logic in applying such a penalty on *just* this one tax, when other taxes have nothing like this kind of penalty and is usually capped.

Is it just a case where some junior civil servent put it in the bill, it got passed without anyone really looking into it and doing the maths, and then they refuse to admit they made a mistake.

It is of the opinion of others that if this tax was taken to the high court, it would fail due to excessive penalties (google "NPPR late payment trap irish times" for letter on Friday 28th June). Now its just a matter of getting the lawyer fees together to bring it to the high court


----------



## Brendan Burgess

As I said, you should be able to get Counsel's opinion free of charge. 

Brendan


----------



## jdpl28

I've just checked up the legislation again on this - in the 2011 amendment, it seems to re-define the person liable to pay the NPPR as being the person who the rent is paid to, which would seem to be the agent?

Any thoughts/advice?

Its section 18 - at the 2011 legislation - google "local government house hold charge act 2011". Actual text:

(vii) by substituting the following definition for the definition of “owner”:
“ ‘owner’, in relation to a residential property,
means—
(a) a person (other than a mortgagee not in
possession) who—
(i) in the case of a residential property
that is let under a lease or held under
a tenancy for a term not exceeding 20
years, is entitled to receive the rent
under that lease or tenancy, whether
in his or her own right or as trustee
or agent for another person, or
(ii) in the case of a residential property
that is not so let or so held, would,
subject to paragraph (b), be so
entitled if the residential property
were so let or so held, whether in that
person’s own right or as trustee or
agent for another person,
or
(b) where the property is let under a lease or
held under a tenancy for a term exceeding
20 years, the person (other than a mortgagee not in possession) who is the lessee
under that lease or the tenant under that
tenancy;”,


----------



## dereko1969

Sorry but I'm not sure I really believe that someone with a property in Ireland, paying tax on their rental income here etc would not have been aware of the NPPR. Any occasional look at Irish news websites over the past 3 years should have made anyone aware of the charge.


----------



## capnhand

On the contrary, when I was living abroad I seldom read the Irish websites and I would not have been aware of what was going on back home unless I was told. I was too busy doing other things which were lots more important at the time. 

I think it a bit harsh to blame the OP really and just assume he is just "chancing his arm". The OP had paid an accountant, estate agent etc that should have made him aware of the NPPR.


----------



## jdpl28

Exactly - I should have been contacted by one of three different agents, the council, my estate agent and my tax agent. While I do read the newspapers online fairly regularly - the NPPR just did not stand out to me & the first time I'd even heard of that phrase was a few weeks ago.

Secondly - just before i was going I was partially aware of a 'second home' tax. THats all how I remember it - only as a second home tax. I'm not sure if that was just a convenient short-hand for the media, or that was how it was advertised by the government at the time??? From reading blogs - it seems like I'm not the only one who got confused by this.

Thirdly - its the scale of the penalty which is way beyond what other taxes have as late fees. Like I said - the household charge is capped. Why was this not? If you were out of the country for 10 years, your looking at a fine thats over 10k? How can this be justified? This fine will *cripple* some people - it nearly crippled me, this is really not a good time for me to have to fork out 2.2k - not that anytime would be a good time.


----------



## oldnick

As it's almost impossible to get Irish papers  outside the main resorts/cities one resorts to the internet and I agree with OP that  this would never have featured as a main story -if at all-  over the years on news websites.

But it's not only for ex-pats; the problem extends to many  owners of second properties living in Ireland.
 To be bluntly snobbish about it  there is a high degree of semi-literacy in Ireland, and beyond reading the headlines in the sporting section of the Sun  there are tens of thousands who wouldn't  properly read the papers- not that there was ever much NPPR advertising in the press.

And if they do watch/hear the news on TV/radio was there much repeat information about NPPR? I vaguely recall it being advertised a few times -but then I'm a news-freak.

Reading this thread I was minded to ask a  handy-man acquaintance who was doing some work at my house about a second property he'd bought some years ago.
yes, he said , he'd paid his property-charge last year and this year.
I said ,no, I mean the second home tax.
Yes, he'd paid the PRTB letting that property....

After explaining at this stage he owes a few thousand euros NPPR and charges I still had to show him all the info on the internet. I doubt the poor man understood what I was showing him. And I don't think he's properly grasped that he owes thousands of euros.

Whilst ignorance of the law is  no excuse I agree that the punishment is so OTT that I'm surprised that there's been no legal challenge to it.


----------



## jdpl28

There has been legal challenges - a Mr Finbarr Whelan challenged Dublin City Council on the late fees in December 2012 and lost. I was forwarded on a report on the case by my good friend in the local council office as a kind of a "you don't stand a chance - give up now".  See attached

However, I cannot see the document or any reference to the case on the internet after a brief search.

If you do a bit of googling - there are many letters to the papers, blog posts on the same. This tax has screwed so many people so far and its only just started. Its going to get a lot worse over the next few years when people discover they have 5-10k fines, which likely they'll only discover when they're selling their houses.


----------



## T McGibney

Has anyone complained to the Ombudsman's office on this?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi JDP

That seems to be a case in the Small Claims Court and so would have no precedence value.  

All it says is that the Council is not obliged to notify people in advance, which I would agree with anyway.

The key question is whether the penalties for late payment are proportionate. That needs to be challenged in the High Court.


----------



## jdpl28

Thanks Brendan. I assume any challenge in the high court would cost far more than the penalties? So very likely it would never happen?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

I think Tommy's suggestion of the Ombudsman might be the most practical approach. 

Or get a big group together to fund a High Court challenge.


----------



## jdpl28

Following up on this - further research suggests that the management agent may indeed be liable for this charge:

Check out:
[broken link removed]

and:


Anyone with any opinions on this?


----------



## dermotneary

*Dermot Neary*

I have heard of one case where a UK resident sought the assistance of their local elected representative who discovered that it was contrary to EU law to apply interest and penalties to a person not living in Ireland where they had not been issued with a demand for same.
The person in question was interviewed on a local radio station last year but I have been unable to get further details.


----------



## Luternau

jdpl28 said:


> Following up on this - further research suggests that the management agent may indeed be liable for this charge:
> 
> Check out:
> [broken link removed]
> 
> and:
> 
> 
> Anyone with any opinions on this?



There is a big reliance on the word 'may'. It does not seem clear cut from that information that they would be liable to pay it-just that they could pay it and then with hold that amount from rents received.
Clearly the agent should have told you about this charge via a monthly statement or letter. Have you tried to raise the matter with them?


----------



## jdpl28

Hi Dermot - I would very much like to hear more about that if you could find any further information on that case. Thank you for bringing it up.

Hi Luthernau - I have brought up the issue with the agent - expressed my concerns on her lack of good service and mentioned she should think about notifying other land-lords of their liabilities regarding this tax considering how much they would rake up in fines if left unpaid. She replied, told me she 'wouldn't dream of interfering with a customers tax business', accused me of smearing her name and her business, and promptly told me she did not want to do any further business with me. I am still waiting for 1 months rent and the tenants deposit. Its been a month already. So I've got hit on the double basically with this lack of payment and the original tax. I agree I should not have said all what I said, but I was so shocked when i realised that I had a fine of 2.2k to pay out I likely was a little less than subtle. However - it doesn't dispose of her responsibility to pay me monies owed. She probably knows well that its not worth me bringing her to court for the amount owed.... (about 1800)...


----------



## Karloh

Upon suggestion by the ombudsman I've tried the letter/cheque for full settlement approach. It was rejected by DCC and cheque returned. 

I've now requested the ombudsman takes up the case. I've sent them the details and they are considering whether to take it up. They have been back to me with various questions regarding my tax returns in Ireland etc.  I'll post again when I hear back. 

Incidentally for those who don't believe people could be unaware if the tax this is clearly not the case. While there may have been some talk of the tax in Ireland, it certainly didn't reach me - unlike the LPT which was heavily publicized. I suspect the fact that it was local council managed mean that all standard notifications were bypassed.


----------



## Luternau

Karloh said:


> Incidentally for those who don't believe people could be unaware if the tax this is clearly not the case. While there may have been some talk of the tax in Ireland, it certainly didn't reach me - unlike the RPT which was heavily publicized. I suspect the fact that it was local council managed mean that all standard notifications were bypassed.



This is not true-it was heavily advertised on a national scale and it was not left to each council to do their own thing. The charge was a self declare-no letters issued to any owners and there was/is no liability on the Revenue or Council to advertise this outside of Ireland. All online versions of Irish newspapers had copy on it - so the information was out there to read no matter where you were.

I do agree that the penalties for non payment are excessively punative and I wonder how they can impose a heavier penalty on the NPPR than non payment of income tax etc.


----------



## mrissue

*statute of limitations*

when will this charge become statute barred under the
statute of limitations or will it ever


----------



## Time

They attach it to the property so it never goes barred.


----------



## danash

Time said:


> They attach it to the property so it never goes barred.


 

I am selling an investment property and the first questions my solicitor asked was about the NPPR and the former Household charge. She needed up to date documentation that all was paid up before issuing contracts so it does not go away.

I was up to date however.....some of my friends have falllen for this as well and have bills approaching 3K.


----------



## dermotneary

*Dermot Neary*



jdpl28 said:


> Hi Dermot - I would very much like to hear more about that if you could find any further information on that case. Thank you for bringing it up


 

It was a weekday Ocean FM morning show (after 9am) from this time last year (maybe Monday/Tuesday, August 27th/28th or 20th/21st 2012) and featured a lady from the UK who owned a house in Ireland and had enlisted the help of her local MEP to avoid having to pay late fees.

I contacted the station to see if they would be able to put me in touch with the caller or pass on my contact details but no joy and unfortunately the program wasn't available on podcast.


----------



## Karloh

I got a reply from the Ombudsman, effectively saying they sympathized, but that the could only intervene with regards to the administration of the tax, and not on the rights/wrongs of the tax itself or the penalties, which were legislation and outside their remit.  I then got on to the Dublin city manager, and got another PFO from them.  

Luternau - what I meant by bypassed is that The Revenue Commissioners have a set if standard notification mechanisms through which the communicate with taxpayers.  I don't believe DCC have these same channels and so a media campaign was executed instad. It may have been comprehensive, but I read the Irish Times every day online, and I certainly didn't see it. 

Anyway, I've already paid the charge/fine, so I'm probably going to let it drop at this stage. But the extortionate/disproportionate penalty leaves a very bad taste - as it does for all the emigrants who missed it, rightly or wrongly.


----------



## Luternau

Karloh said:


> I read the Irish Times every day online, and I certainly didn't see it.



As I said, I disagree with the penalties etc.

I read papers online too and I can assure you, this was front/home page news for a long time.

At least its paid now-so its sorted for you.


----------



## Karloh

Well maybe you're right.  I'm not sure how I missed it - I must have been offline for that period, which is not entirely impossible.  Googling the tax brings up much more content on the Late Payment Trap than original articles / promotion of the tax though.  I've also just discovered that a number ouf Councils, including Galway, communicated by letter to all those suspected of being liable, using the data from the Private Residential Tenancies Board.  

I've now sent Freedom of Information request to both DCC and the Dept of the Environment requesting details of the advertising campaigns along with details of any other deliberations relating to emigrants/overseas residents - communications to as well as regarding late payment fees.

Like I said, I'm lucky enough to have been in a position to pay the tax, but I think the whole thing is a gross breach of the contract between government and governed and should be challenged in whatever way possible.


----------



## Bronte

Karloh said:


> I've now sent Freedom of Information request to both DCC and the Dept of the Environment requesting details of the advertising campaigns along with details of any other deliberations relating to emigrants/overseas residents - communications to as well as regarding late payment fees.


 
While I sympathise with your predicament at the end of the day it's your responsibility to be up to date with all your obligations as a property owner. The letting agent is not at fault on this, but I'd certainly say your accountant should have informed you. From now on annually make sure you ask him is there anything else you have to pay. There is also a landlord thread on here and there is another website called irishlandlords.ie that might be helpful. 

I agree that the fines are disproportionate. In addition to the NPPR, there was the household charge and now the new property tax. Water charges will be coming down the track. A new broadcasting tax, instead of the TV licence, but I imagine that will apply to the tenants.  The PRTB registration is really important.  Keep an eye for information here on AAM as we debate all the new taxes all the time.


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> The letting agent is not at fault on this, but I'd certainly say your accountant should have informed you. From now on annually make sure you ask him is there anything else you have to pay.



Hi B,

It would be utterly unrealistic to expect an accountant, who is hired essentially to prepare a tax return in the same way as a garage is hired to service a car, to micro manage a substantial number of clients' wider statutory compliance obligations unless they are charging a premium fee that will cover all the extra work that this entails.  

Would you expect an accountant to monitor your compliance with BER certs? Planning permission conditions? TV licences? Dog licences? If so, how much would you be willing to pay for all this?

Why, in this instance do you say that the letting agent has no responsibility, but the accountant has? Do you include their solicitor, bank or insurer in this? If not, why not?


----------



## Bronte

Hi Tommy, 

No of couse I wouldn't expect an accountant to do all those things, but taxes are accountant's business. What my accountant does is insist we have a once a year meeting when I go to Ireland and we run through and discuss everything. But I'd be fairly well up on most things. I think a simple list of all the possible taxes and charges on an A4 sheet might be helpful for everybody. Especially for clients that live abroad. And maybe a link to websites like AAM. 

Remember the dreaded PRTB registrations, which I nearly got caught out on myself, I had to inform Irish residents who are landlords about that as despite all the publicity people didn't know anything about it. 

In relation to lettting agents or estate agents. As you probably know I wouldn't rely on them to collect rent never mind inform me of any obligations I might have as a landlord. 

At the end of the day though, accountant or not, the buck will stop with me.

You can get your assistant to draft up a list, should take about half an hour, your clients will love you ! (Can't find the smiley button)

You know the list you made about dog licences or BER, they don't matter, because, there are no penalties.


----------



## T McGibney

Hi B

We do make every effort to tell our clients about developments and to keep them informed as best we can, hence one key reason why I have a blog, but we cannot and do not guarantee that this will cover everything, and its up to everyone to ensure that their own house is in order. 

This is largely because the pace & scale of new regulations is mindblowing.

For example, I was shocked to learn this on Twitter late Saturday night:



> Frank Fitzgibbon ‏@FrankSunTimes 31 Aug
> 
> ST News: Did you know that it has been illegal to put food in the black bin since last February? Me neither. That'll be a €4,000 fine please
> Expand
> 
> Frank Fitzgibbon ‏@FrankSunTimes 31 Aug
> 
> That food ban presently applies in every Irish city and towns over 25,000. Nationwide by July 2016 anywhere with pop in excess of 500
> Expand


https://twitter.com/FrankSunTimes

There is no way any accountant could ever hope to keep all clients abreast of all such new laws & penalties, although there is enough there to give us all a decent living if only people would pay us for it


----------



## Bronte

T McGibney said:


> , but we cannot and do not guarantee that this will cover everything, and its up to everyone to ensure that their own house is in order.


 
Agreed.  

Sounds like you need a debt collector to get your bills paid, maybe get them to pay by instalment, my uncle, a gentle man, used to go out to farmers etc to get the bills paid, if you make it a reasonable amount people can deal with that and treat them kindly.  

Are you not informed if the rules on bins change?  Where I am if you put something in wrong you get a big red sticker with a warning on your wrong bag/bin.  And they don't collect it. After that it's a big fine.


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> Sounds like you need a debt collector to get your bills paid, maybe get them to pay by instalment, my uncle, a gentle man, used to go out to farmers etc to get the bills paid, if you make it a reasonable amount people can deal with that and treat them kindly.



Hi B, 
That isn't my point really, and I'm not complaining at all about my own situation, happy enough all round and luckier than most, my point really is that its impossible for accountants to keep up with, let alone assume responsibility for, the vast torrent of non-tax regulation affecting households and businesses in this country.  

There is maybe an opening for businesses offering "compliance monitoring" services but the sheer volume of regulation means that it would be impossible for any existing business to offer such services as a add-on to their existing services unless they were able to command significant extra fees for doing so.


----------



## Karloh

My accountant felt he had some responsibility for not informing me, and will do something in the future in terms of fees.  But he felt partially rather than fully responsible - as with some of the arguments here, he considered it to be a rates type of charge, rather than a tax.  

I think everyone pretty much agrees that it is up to the taxpayer to be aware of taxes.  Fair enough.  But implicit in this in the taxing authorities make a reasonable effort to contact taxpayers using channels that taxpayers have come to expect/rely on.  

But far more relevant is that the penalty should be commensurate with the infraction.  For overseas residents/emigrants to be charged excessive penalties when they have a pretty strong argument for "understandable oversight" rather than evasion is simply not reasonable.  

Incidentally, I'm not really in a predicament.  I've paid the tax and the fine, and I'm lucky enough that it doesn't hurt much. But this is unreasonable behaviour on the part of the state, and it is putting lots of people - many of whom had to leave the country due to catastrophic financial mismanagement by the same state - under lots of pressure.  So I've got a bee in my bonnet.


----------



## T McGibney

Karloh said:


> this is unreasonable behaviour on the part of the state, and it is putting lots of people - many of whom had to leave the country due to catastrophic financial mismanagement by the same state - under lots of pressure.



Well said.


----------



## RainyDay

Karloh said:


> Incidentally, I'm not really in a predicament.  I've paid the tax and the fine, and I'm lucky enough that it doesn't hurt much. But this is unreasonable behaviour on the part of the state, and it is putting lots of people - many of whom had to leave the country due to catastrophic financial mismanagement by the same state - under lots of pressure.  So I've got a bee in my bonnet.



Do you think that perhaps given that you are running a small business in Ireland (i.e. renting a property), you had an obligation yourself to stay in touch with what was happening here? Perhaps you should have proactively asked your accountant or your property manager or any trusty family member as to whether there were any developments you should have been aware of?


----------



## dermotneary

jdpl28 said:


> Secondly - just before i was going I was partially aware of a 'second home' tax. THats all how I remember it - only as a second home tax. I'm not sure if that was just a convenient short-hand for the media, or that was how it was advertised by the government at the time??? From reading blogs - it seems like I'm not the only one who got confused by this.


 
This is a key point; it was not immediately obvious that a person with only one house in Ireland would be liable for this charge.

Even the legislation is not clear on the matter:-

Under “Exemptions from charge”:- 
4-(1) A person who, on a liability date, is the owner of a residential property shall not, in respect of that residential property, be liable to pay the charge relating to that liability date if the residential property is, on that date – 
(a) in the case of an owner who is an individual – 
(i) occupied by that individual as his or her sole or main residence


As we know; legislation is open to interpretation, so if a non-resident occupied the house on the liability date; they could claim to be Exempt, it being their sole/main/only residence in Ireland.

There is no reference in the legislation to a sole/main residence in another country.


----------



## Karloh

RainyDay said:


> Do you think that perhaps given that you are running a small business in Ireland (i.e. renting a property), you had an obligation yourself to stay in touch with what was happening here? Perhaps you should have proactively asked your accountant or your property manager or any trusty family member as to whether there were any developments you should have been aware of?



Yes sure - like I said in my post.  It's my responsibility to know about the tax. But the state also bears some responsibility to communicate effectively and using the established channels that people have come to rely on.  And as such the punishment should fit the "crime". That's the key issue.  Nobody on this thread is really questioning the tax itself - it is the penalty that is at issue, and to a lesser extent the communication of the tax. 

It's also clear that most overseas residents in this situation are genuine, as evidenced by being up to date with the LPT, declaring rental revenue, registering with the PRTB etc.


----------



## nononsense

Just reading through this... and I see 2 things here:

a) Incompetency of professional parties (estate agent & accountant)
b) Unfair penalties & charges for late payment - as these penalties are not consistent with other penalties applied to other taxes.

Not much we can do about a), however in the case of b) we should be communicating our lack of support of such unfair terms... If the penalty charge was fair, it would be comparable to the other penalty charges applied to other taxes.


----------



## dereko1969

You forgot:
c) taxpayers with assets in a country not being familiar with the law of the land and demanding to be spoon-fed information to avoid penalties?


----------



## Ceist Beag

You forgot:
d) posters leaping up on that high horse of theirs to attack anyone who dares raise a (valid) concern that in this case the punishment is completely disproportionate to the crime.


----------



## Bronte

dereko1969 said:


> You forgot:
> c) taxpayers with assets in a country not being familiar with the law of the land and demanding to be spoon-fed information to avoid penalties?


 
I think that's a bit over the top. How about efficiency from revenue in communicating this tax to overseas landlords. 

1. They know who we are
2. They know we may not read Irish newspapers, and if we do we don't read revenue ads, I've never noticed ads when I read Irish newspapers online, and where I am there are no longer paper versions
3. They know we are landlords
4. How easy it would be for them to write a standard letter to all landlords outlining the taxes/rates or whatever that we should think about
5. How about in the landlord section they have a list of all the potential taxes, not all over the place in different parts of their website
6. How about a bit of leniency, the OP is not evading a tax, nor was he avoiding it, he didn't realise it existed.  I do believe that currently, due to the downturn, revenue are being more 'kind' to taxpayes, why should that apply to some and not others


----------



## Bronte

Karloh said:


> My accountant felt partially rather than fully responsible - as with some of the arguments here, he considered it to be a rates type of charge, rather than a tax.


 
And you've no idea how many arguments we've had on here in relation to just that point, as we also debated whether some of these taxes were indeed rates and charges and should be tax deductable, and that point has not been fully resolved to my satisfaction.  And despite revenue stating they would have a tax briefing on the issue, they haven't bothered, or don't want to, clarify the matter fully.


----------



## Luternau

Bronte said:


> And despite revenue stating they would have a tax briefing on the issue, they haven't bothered, or don't want to, clarify the matter fully.



Agreed. I find it really odd that some are claiming it and others not. Revenue are sure it have audited some of those claiming. If it's not allowed, we are told -if I am not mistaken, they just say to stop claiming for future years with no penalty for claiming it. That's quite unfair and inconsistent with other overclaimimg scenarios. At the very least it should indicate to them that there is confusion over it.

However, some hete say they did clarify it and it's not deductible.....


----------



## mandelbrot

Bronte said:


> I think that's a bit over the top. How about efficiency from revenue in communicating this tax to overseas landlords.
> 
> 1. They know who we are
> 2. They know we may not read Irish newspapers, and if we do we don't read revenue ads, I've never noticed ads when I read Irish newspapers online, and where I am there are no longer paper versions
> 3. They know we are landlords
> 4. How easy it would be for them to write a standard letter to all landlords outlining the taxes/rates or whatever that we should think about
> 5. How about in the landlord section they have a list of all the potential taxes, not all over the place in different parts of their website
> 6. How about a bit of leniency, the OP is not evading a tax, nor was he avoiding it, he didn't realise it existed. I do believe that currently, due to the downturn, revenue are being more 'kind' to taxpayes, why should that apply to some and not others


 
Why are you putting the blame on Revenue - the NPPR is neither administered nor collected by Revenue - it's the local authorities' baby. The mess they've made of administering it is presumably a large part of the reason why administering LPT was given to Revenue. So in relation to NPPR and Revenue, points 1-6 are pretty much redundant. (You wouldn't expect Revenue to be writing out to people to pay their overdue motor tax just because they know who owns the vehicle, when motor tax is the Dept of Environment's remit?)

As for point 4 specifically, I'd say it would have been very difficult for "them" (the LA or indeed Revenue) to write a standard letter to all landlords, given that it's a chicken and egg type situation - in many cases the landlord's identity wasn't known until the NPPR had been introduced. Anecdotally I've heard lots of previously unregistered (with PRTB or Revenue) landlords have come out of the woodwork since the NPPR arrived. Sure, in the case of overseas landlords, they wouldn't have the correct address to write to (and if they wrote to the property address itself there's no guarantee it'll reach the landlord) - so they'd end up in a situation where they were exposed to people challenging their right to collect, on the basis that they'd never received the letter.


----------



## mandelbrot

Luternau said:


> Agreed. I find it really odd that some are claiming it and others not. Revenue are sure it have audited some of those claiming. If it's not allowed, we are told -if I am not mistaken, they just say to stop claiming for future years with no penalty for claiming it. That's quite unfair and inconsistent with other overclaimimg scenarios. At the very least it should indicate to them that there is confusion over it.
> 
> However, some hete say they did clarify it and it's not deductible.....


 
I'm satisfied that it's not deductible.

I'm also satisfied that the absence of clear guidance in the form of an ebrief or a mention in the tax manuals means that in an audit scenario it would have to be treated as a technical adjustment and accordingly no penalty would apply.

I'm also satisfied that if in an audit scenario the *only* issue that arose requiring adjustment was a €200 claim for an expense item that you could have a decent argument about, then (taking into account the administrative cost of raising a revised assessment and potentially ending up in court arguing over €100 of tax) any reasonable person would reach a sensible agreement going forward.


----------



## dereko1969

Bronte said:


> I think that's a bit over the top. How about efficiency from revenue in communicating this tax to overseas landlords.
> 
> 1. They know who we are
> 2. They know we may not read Irish newspapers, and if we do we don't read revenue ads, I've never noticed ads when I read Irish newspapers online, and where I am there are no longer paper versions
> 3. They know we are landlords
> 4. How easy it would be for them to write a standard letter to all landlords outlining the taxes/rates or whatever that we should think about
> 5. How about in the landlord section they have a list of all the potential taxes, not all over the place in different parts of their website
> 6. How about a bit of leniency, the OP is not evading a tax, nor was he avoiding it, he didn't realise it existed. I do believe that currently, due to the downturn, revenue are being more 'kind' to taxpayes, why should that apply to some and not others


 
They didn't know who you were Bronte that was the whole point of the NPPR, to gather information on properties and who owned them. 

Maybe you're mixing it up with the LPT which given you're talking about Revenue might well be the case.

How did you find out about the NPPR?


----------



## Luternau

Correct. 
@Bronte
There was no reliable list of Non Principle Private Resisances in existence to do a mailing. And it was not just landlords that had to pay. Lots of second homes in the country that would fall outside any trawl of PTRB database. Any attempt to mail notices would have resulted in more mayhem than no mailing or attempt to contact direct.

In reality, because there was no Database etc, those that could prove to be outside of Ireland, should not have to pay the ridicously high penalties. Those that were here, got enough information to know this was coming in, so a penalty should apply, but no higher than applied to unpaid tax.


----------



## T McGibney

This wouldn't be a controversy at all if a more lenient penalty regime had applied, on the lines for example of that which attached to the Household Charge.


----------



## Bronte

dereko1969 said:


> They didn't know who you were Bronte that was the whole point of the NPPR, to gather information on properties and who owned them.
> 
> How did you find out about the NPPR?


 
But revenue knew I was a non resident landlord.  It's on the forms I fill out that they have?  

How did I find out about NPPR?  Don't remember, but I read the papers, I'm a member of the IPOA which sends me circulars, I have family who are landlords (some of whom pay the NPPR and some who have paid zero on anything, not tax, not PRTB etc) also I have debated NPPR and all other landlord issues on here.  And I have an annual discussion with my accountant.


----------



## Bronte

Luternau said:


> @Bronte
> There was no reliable list of Non Principle Private Resisances in existence to do a mailing.
> 
> In reality, because there was no Database etc, those that could prove to be outside of Ireland, should not have to pay the ridicously high penalties. Those that were here, got enough information to know this was coming in, so a penalty should apply, but no higher than applied to unpaid tax.


 
But revenue know who the non resident landlords. And the civil servants who drafted the penalties would know that non residents would have an issue with knowing about this tax/charge/rate. 

Going forward, if the government proposes any new tax/charge/rate then there should be a database to inform non residents because the message is not getting through. I nearly missed the PRTB myself. Indeed a family member in Ireland didn't know about it.

I get notifications about one NPPR I have to pay but another county does not send them out.  How is that for joined up thinking.


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> But revenue know who the non resident landlords. And the civil servants who drafted the penalties would know that non residents would have an issue with knowing about this tax/charge/rate.
> 
> Going forward, if the government proposes any new tax/charge/rate then there should be a database to inform non residents because the message is not getting through. I nearly missed the PRTB myself. Indeed a family member in Ireland didn't know about it.
> 
> I get notifications about one NPPR I have to pay but another county does not send them out.  How is that for joined up thinking.



Two quick points here:
1. Revenue weren't allowed administer the NPPR so their own systems, expertise etc are totally moot in this discussion.
2. The scale of the penalties for non-payment of the NPPR meant that they incentivised the councils to produce a mere token information campaign to publicise it. The more people who didnt know about it, the more the councils had to gain in late payment penalties.


----------



## Bronte

T McGibney said:


> The more people who didnt know about it, the more the councils had to gain in late payment penalties.


 
Apart from this being morally questionable, is it in any way legally challengable I wonder.  The fines are extortion.


----------



## RainyDay

Bronte said:


> Apart from this being morally questionable, is it in any way legally challengable I wonder.  The fines are extortion.



The first step would be to take a case to the Ombudsman, though I'd have thought it is very unlikely to succeed.


----------



## T McGibney

Nobody will ever win a case to the Ombudsman based on an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. However there is a reasonable case to be made in relation to the scale of the penalties being unduly onerous & unjust. Whether such a case would succeed remains to be seen.


----------



## Karloh

I've already engaged with the ombudsman without success. 

I've now sent freedom of information requests to the council and to the department, requesting information about:
- the campaigns to publicize the nppr. 
- internal minutes/discussions etc re. treatment of verses residents viz. the nppr 
- any deliberations re. exoneration
- any consideration of the systems implications of above.

I've had confirmations that the request has been received, but nothing else as yet. 

I've also sent letters to all and sundry, with very little response, and a very aggressive pfo from Dublin city council.


----------



## Bronte

What did the ombudsman say?  

Not sure I understand part of what you've posted - verses?

What is PFO?

Fair play to you for taking this further.  

In relation to exoneration, I seem to recall that there was a method, eventually, with the NPPR on how councy council's could help people on this, can't remember if I got a letter or it was mentioned on AAM or in the newspapers.


----------



## Luternau

....let's just PFO is please go away, in a not so polite way!

Yes fair play to the poster. They will do well to get any meaningful engagement or even all the requested information. This info will be dripped as they see fit.


----------



## T McGibney

I don't see the Ombudsman ever being able to rule in favour of the taxpayer on grounds of insufficient publicity campaigns etc for the NPPR & its penalties, as the adequacy or otherwise of adverts etc is by its nature subjective. That said, I think there is scope for the Ombudsman to address and perhaps overrule the scale of penalties, as these are clearly extremely harsh relative to the actual NPPR charge, to the point that they may constitute a breach of natural justice.


----------



## RainyDay

Karloh said:


> I've already engaged with the ombudsman without success.
> 
> I've now sent freedom of information requests to the council and to the department, requesting information about:
> - the campaigns to publicize the nppr.
> - internal minutes/discussions etc re. treatment of verses residents viz. the nppr
> - any deliberations re. exoneration
> - any consideration of the systems implications of above.
> 
> I've had confirmations that the request has been received, but nothing else as yet.
> 
> I've also sent letters to all and sundry, with very little response, and a very aggressive pfo from Dublin city council.



You might like to broaden your search to include Dept Environment (who would have made the policy and legislation in this area) and LGMA who may well have had a role coordinating the local authorities dealings with Dept Environment.


----------



## Karloh

I just got a response from the Freedom of Information office of the Department of the Environment Community and Local Government (ref previous post I had sent the freedom of information request to both DCC and the Dept.) 

The letter was very constructive, and they are prepared to do the information research as requested. The sting is that they estimate the cost of processing the request will be €523 - 25 hours at €20.95/hour.  I'm going ahead with it anyway, and I'm due to speak to them tomorrow to clarify the requirement.

Sorry for the lack of clarity on the previous posts, what I've asked for is:
- Details on the campaigns to publicize the nppr. 
- Internal minutes/discussions etc re. treatment of _overseas_ residents viz. the nppr 
- any deliberations re. exoneration
- any consideration of the systems implications of above.

Incidentally, no reply from DCC to date. According to the rules no reply by October 4th should be taken as a rejection of the request.  Will be pretty interesting/speak volumes if one arm of the state agrees to the request and one refuses.  

Again, I'll keep you posted.


----------



## amethyst

FYI, further back in this long thread, someone said that the Ombudsman has rejected the possibility of intervening regarding the excessiveness of the tax itself:

>> I got a reply from the Ombudsman, effectively saying they sympathized, but that the could only intervene with regards to the administration of the tax, and not on the rights/wrongs of the tax itself or the penalties, which were legislation and outside their remit. I then got on to the Dublin city manager, and got another PFO from them. 

I suspect that this ruling of the Ombudsman is legally correct -- that they have no authority to question legislation.  I'll be looking up their legislative charter to see if it is so.

It looks like the only option is to challenge this in the High Court on the basis of the excessiveness of the fines.

Anyone know about rights against excessive fines in Irish Law?  Any case law?  I couldn't find it in our constitution (in contrast with the American Constitution which has it),  but it may be in our law as an inferred right or a matter of Equity.

I'm 95% sure its also in the European Convention of Human Rights, to which we are party.


----------



## RainyDay

amethyst said:


> I suspect that this ruling of the Ombudsman is legally correct -- that they have no authority to question legislation.  I'll be looking up their legislative charter to see if it is so.


The Ombudsman did rule that the Mobility Allowance scheme was unsound, given that it discriminates against older people. I'm not sure if this was questioning legislation, or questioning a scheme.


----------



## amethyst

That's interesting RainyDay.

I did look up the act setting up the Ombudsman.

“(2) Subject to this Act, the Ombudsman may investigate
any *action* taken by or on behalf of a reviewable
agency in the performance of administrative functions
where, having carried out a preliminary examination of the
matter, it appears to the Ombudsman—
(a) that the action has or may have adversely
affected an eligible person, and
(b) that the action was or may have been—
(i) taken without proper authority,
(ii) taken on irrelevant grounds,
(iii) the result of negligence or carelessness,
(iv) based on erroneous or incomplete
information,
(v) improperly discriminatory,
(vi) based on an undesirable administrative
practice,
(vii) a failure to comply with section 4A, or
(viii) otherwise contrary to fair or sound administration.

The Act does NOT seem to directly allow the Ombudsman to review legislation.

It would be interesting to see on what grounds the Ombudsman felt it appropriate to rule that he Mobility Allowance was unsound, even though it was being administered according to law.  It would seem that they felt it within their remit to review the law in this case, if you are correct. It would seem to me that if they felt that they could comment on the unfairness of the Mobility Allowance (as prescribed by law) they should be able to do the same for the the excessiveness of the NPPR late penalties.  Because, looking above, they may have noted that the Mobility Allowance was '(v) unfairly discriminatory' -- but we can similarly say that the NPPR late penalties are '(viii) otherwise contrary to *fair* or sound administration'.

Thanks a lot for that information RainyDay, I'll be looking into it.


----------



## RainyDay

amethyst said:


> The Act does NOT seem to directly allow the Ombudsman to review legislation.
> 
> It would be interesting to see on what grounds the Ombudsman felt it appropriate to rule that he Mobility Allowance was unsound, even though it was being administered according to law.  It would seem that they felt it within their remit to review the law in this case, if you are correct. It would seem to me that if they felt that they could comment on the unfairness of the Mobility Allowance (as prescribed by law) they should be able to do the same for the the excessiveness of the NPPR late penalties.  Because, looking above, they may have noted that the Mobility Allowance was '(v) unfairly discriminatory' -- but we can similarly say that the NPPR late penalties are '(viii) otherwise contrary to *fair* or sound administration'.
> 
> Thanks a lot for that information RainyDay, I'll be looking into it.



From what I know, it was the Ombudsman's view that the Mobility Allowance breached equality legislation, by restricting the benefit based on age.

Funnily enough, I disagree with your view on the NPPR, but I'm always happy to see due process applying, so best of luck with your efforts.


----------



## T McGibney

The Ombudsman Report 2009 addressed a case where a complainant received redress from a perceived unfair application by Revenue of Section 1041 of the Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997.

 [broken link removed]


----------



## amethyst

Thanks T McGibney.  That seems to be a clear-cut case where the Ombudsman is complaining that the law itself is unfair.

>>  Funnily enough, I disagree with your view on the NPPR

RainyDay, keep in mind that I don't disagree with the NPPR or the size of it, just the excessive penalties.

Do you think that the penalties are just not excessive in this case,  or do you disagree that penalties can be excessive in principle?

The penalties are 120% of tax per year of lapse,  UNCAPPED. Say you were unaware of your obligation and didn't pay for 4 years.  *Four years later you have, due to non-payment, almost 6 (5.8) times your original obligation.  *  There is a figure of almost 6 here for 4 years of non-payment--Is this not too high?  What figure *would* be too high to be fair in your view?


----------



## RainyDay

amethyst said:


> >>  Funnily enough, I disagree with your view on the NPPR
> 
> RainyDay, keep in mind that I don't disagree with the NPPR or the size of it, just the excessive penalties.
> 
> Do you think that the penalties are just not excessive in this case,  or do you disagree that penalties can be excessive in principle?
> 
> The penalties are 120% of tax per year of lapse,  UNCAPPED. Say you were unaware of your obligation and didn't pay for 4 years.  *Four years later you have, due to non-payment, almost 6 (5.8) times your original obligation.  *  There is a figure of almost 6 here for 4 years of non-payment--Is this not too high?  What figure *would* be too high to be fair in your view?


My own view is that I don't see any credible reason why someone would be unaware of the fee, and a high penalty is justified to ensure high compliance.


----------



## dereko1969

Karloh said:


> I just got a response from the Freedom of Information office of the Department of the Environment Community and Local Government (ref previous post I had sent the freedom of information request to both DCC and the Dept.)
> 
> The letter was very constructive, and they are prepared to do the information research as requested. The sting is that they estimate the cost of processing the request will be €523 - 25 hours at €20.95/hour. I'm going ahead with it anyway, and I'm due to speak to them tomorrow to clarify the requirement.
> 
> Sorry for the lack of clarity on the previous posts, what I've asked for is:
> - Details on the campaigns to publicize the nppr.
> - Internal minutes/*discussions* etc re. treatment of _overseas_ residents viz. the nppr
> - any *deliberations *re. exoneration
> - any *consideration* of the systems implications of above.
> 
> Incidentally, no reply from DCC to date. According to the rules no reply by October 4th should be taken as a rejection of the request. Will be pretty interesting/speak volumes if one arm of the state agrees to the request and one refuses.
> 
> Again, I'll keep you posted.


 
Remember that FOI relates to documents and emails - so deliberations, discussions and considerations if they weren't written down won't show up.


----------



## T McGibney

RainyDay said:


> My own view is that I don't see any credible reason why someone would be unaware of the fee, *and a high penalty is justified to ensure high compliance.*



It speaks volumes that the Local Property Tax achieved high compliance levels without any need for an effective 120% per annum interest rate on late payments.


----------



## Time

That is more to do with who is collecting it.


----------



## amethyst

RainyDay said:
>>> My own view is that I don't see any credible reason why someone would be unaware of the fee, and a high penalty is justified to ensure high compliance.

I'm hoping that the selection process for judges is such that those who get to be judges would be able to see credible reasons (even in advance before they are put before them) why people would be unaware of the fee.

Hopefully, such judges would also have a concept of Natural Justice.


----------



## murphaph

It's easy to imagine folks living abroad might get caught by changes in legislation like this. Heck, you could owe a fortune if you fell into a coma for a few years. It is an extortionate rate of interest that a money lender would be embarrassed by. There's no good reason for this particular charge (tax by another name) to have such a punitive interest rate applied.

There should be penalties for non or late payment, but reasonable penalties please!


----------



## amethyst

If we follow RainyDays reasoning to its logical conclusions,  there would be no upper limit on what would be a fair, legal fine, and no 'credible' reasons for being uninformed of the fine.  So it would be fair and legal if someone who fails to pay for one year, due to Alzheimers or being in a coma after a car-crash, loses the entire value of their property for failure to pay.


----------



## RainyDay

murphaph said:


> It's easy to imagine folks living abroad might get caught by changes in legislation like this. Heck, you could owe a fortune if you fell into a coma for a few years. It is an extortionate rate of interest that a money lender would be embarrassed by. There's no good reason for this particular charge (tax by another name) to have such a punitive interest rate applied.
> 
> There should be penalties for non or late payment, but reasonable penalties please!



If you're running a business in a country, you have a reasonable obligation to keep yourself up to date with legislation changes in that country and pay up accordingly.


----------



## amethyst

RainyDay, noone here is disputing the obligation to pay up. The issue here is on the excessiveness of the fines.


----------



## RainyDay

murphaph said:


> It's easy to imagine folks living abroad might get caught by changes in legislation like this. Heck, you could owe a fortune if you fell into a coma for a few years. It is an extortionate rate of interest that a money lender would be embarrassed by. There's no good reason for this particular charge (tax by another name) to have such a punitive interest rate applied.


If you are living abroad WHILE running a business in this country, you have a responsibility yourself to stay up to date on relevant legislation in this country. It's not good enough to say 'Oh the Govt never told me'. If you run a business here, you have a duty to stay informed yourself.



amethyst said:


> If we follow RainyDays reasoning to its logical conclusions,  there would be no upper limit on what would be a fair, legal fine, and no 'credible' reasons for being uninformed of the fine.  So it would be fair and legal if someone who fails to pay for one year, due to Alzheimers or being in a coma after a car-crash, loses the entire value of their property for failure to pay.


If somebody does have Alzheimers or goes into a coma, the usual process would involve the appointment of a ward of court to manage their affairs. If they do own a rental property here, then somebody will have to do a whole lot of other stuff for them, including managing and maintaining the property and paying tax on rent. The NPPR tax is just a small part of the overall picture.


----------



## amethyst

RainyDay,  you seem to be stuck on proving there is an obligation to pay the tax. There is an obligation to pay the tax. This is not disputed.

Can you absorb these two concepts and hold them as consistent and true at the same time, or does your brain have only room for one of them at one time: (i) a person has an obligation to pay the tax (ii) a person has a right not to be fined *excessively* if they fail to pay the tax.

If you can't maintain these as consistent at the same time,  I might be able to help you further. (i) does not abrogate (ii), but you are writing as if it does. Please point out why you find them inconsistent, or not both true, and I can help you from there.  Please note that the government's right to fine the non-payer is not disputed either. The issue being brought up is only the excessiveness of the fines, not their existence.


----------



## RainyDay

amethyst said:


> or does your brain have only room for one of them at one time:



Please don't patronise me.

The best solution to any concern about the size of the fine is to pay the tax on time, in which case any concern about the size of the fine is moot.


----------



## amethyst

That's plain silly.  People have a right not to be fined excessively, whether they have met their obligations or not.  Nothing you said makes that 'moot'.

Your argument just denies the existence of excessive punishment. You might as well say that if someone is punished with removal of their driving licence for the rest of their lives, for the offense of driving 5mph above the speed limit once,  that their 'best solution to any concern about the magnitude of the punishment was not to drive 5mph over the speed limit, in which case any concern about the excessiveness of the punishment is moot'.

Your response seem to lack ordinary logic, and any concession at all to the concept of natural justice, or any recognition that excessive punishment is, well, *excessive*.

P.S. non-recognition of the right not to be fined or punished excessively by the state can rightly be described as 'fascist' or 'totalitarian'. Limitations on state authority to fine or punish are hallmarks of a democratic society.

If we lose all our rights as a result of offending the state, then we lose all our rights, period.


----------



## RainyDay

amethyst said:


> That's plain silly.  People have a right not to be fined excessively, whether they have met their obligations or not.  Nothing you said makes that 'moot'.
> 
> Your argument just denies the existence of excessive punishment. You might as well say that if someone is punished with removal of their driving licence for the rest of their lives, for the offense of driving 5mph above the speed limit once,  that their 'best solution to any concern about the magnitude of the punishment was not to drive 5mph over the speed limit, in which case any concern about the excessiveness of the punishment is moot'.
> 
> Your response seem to lack ordinary logic, and any concession at all to the concept of natural justice, or any recognition that excessive punishment is, well, *excessive*.
> 
> P.S. non-recognition of the right not to be fined or punished excessively by the state can rightly be described as 'fascist' or 'totalitarian'. Limitations on state authority to fine or punish are hallmarks of a democratic society.
> 
> If we lose all our rights as a result of offending the state, then we lose all our rights, period.



While there is some theoretical truth to your position, I would find it difficult to justify the choice of penalties for the NPPR tax as the priority human rights issue to get animated about in our State. There are many, many other numan rights issues issues that would be priorities for me way above penalties for NPPR tax, given that the easy solution for anyone concerned about NPPR tax penalties is to pay their NPPR tax on time.

Is there any particular reason why you've chosen NPPR tax penalties as the primary human rights issue in the State, over and above treatment of people with disabilities for example, or treatment of homeless people, or the inequalities in our education system or our health system?


----------



## amethyst

Has anyone chosen NPPR tax penalties as the 'primary human rights issue in the State'?

This is the correct forum for this issue. If I were bring it up in the wrong forum, you might have reason to complain in the way you're complaining.


----------



## RainyDay

I've no issue with your choice of forum at all. But really, is your concern about the 'human rights' issue, or is it just that you've been stung? I have a real concern that those who push on issues like this have no real interest in 'natural justice' or 'totalitarianism' or even democracy, and are simply sore about having been caught by the system. Look at the queues of chancers outside motor tax offices last week because of the deadline for the closed loophole. If every natural justice was as easily solved as this, we'd be in a better place.


----------



## amethyst

If you want to think about natural justice or fairness, RainyDay, you have to leave prejudical and reflexive thinking behind. You can't have both.  You seem to have made up your mind that those who face excessive fines under the NPPR deserve everything they get, based on some emotional thinking.

Emotional thinking and fairness just don't go together. The illogical transition from 'some people are chancers' to 'everyone is a chancer' can't be made and fairness preserved. You're making up all these stories in your head about what people who are heavily fined under the NPPR are all about, and what I am all about.

Would the case for excessive fines be strengthened or weakened if I were 'stung' as you say?  What on earth do I and my case have to do the fairness of it?

It so happens that I haven't been personally stung at all, and am taking this issue up as a favor to someone who is less positioned to do anything about it than I am.  When I heard his story, I perceived injustice, and decided to act. That's why I'm here. No other reason. No personal gain on my part.


----------



## murphaph

I haven't been stung but feel the penalties are totally excessive when compared to other taxes.


----------



## RainyDay

amethyst said:


> If you want to think about natural justice or fairness, RainyDay, you have to leave prejudical and reflexive thinking behind. You can't have both.  You seem to have made up your mind that those who face excessive fines under the NPPR deserve everything they get, based on some emotional thinking.
> 
> Emotional thinking and fairness just don't go together. The illogical transition from 'some people are chancers' to 'everyone is a chancer' can't be made and fairness preserved. You're making up all these stories in your head about what people who are heavily fined under the NPPR are all about, and what I am all about.
> 
> Would the case for excessive fines be strengthened or weakened if I were 'stung' as you say?  What on earth do I and my case have to do the fairness of it?
> 
> It so happens that I haven't been personally stung at all, and am taking this issue up as a favor to someone who is less positioned to do anything about it than I am.  When I heard his story, I perceived injustice, and decided to act. That's why I'm here. No other reason. No personal gain on my part.



I take your point, but you seem to be ignoring mine. If you are concerned about fairness and natural justice, then surely there are many, many larger issues of fairness and natural justice in our public system that would take priority over this relatively minor issue? Is it 'fair' to focus on this issue to the exclusion of important issues around disability, elder care, health care, education etc?

I still haven't heard any credible reason for not paying the tax, btw.


----------



## amethyst

I'm not sure what you mean by 'credible'.  But getting Alzheimers is a reason for not paying the tax.  The point that it's supposed to work in the way you said is just that -- a point about how its supposed to work. Life doesn't always work out the way you say it 'should'.

If you wouldn't help on this issue because you think there are more pressing ones, fair enough.  If you think it is a low priority in your list of issues, fair enough.

People don't pick issues to work on on the basis that it is the most important issue in the world or the country.  If they did, very few issues would be worked on at all.  Can anyone justify that the spoiling of a view in a local development is more important than disability aid? They pick issues for many reasons, some of it is perception of their own ability to help -- and perception of whether they are likely to be a success.

Then there is 'moral proximity'.  People feel more morally impelled to prioritize issues that are in some sense closer to them. For this reason, we may consider it reprehensible to let a child die of starvation on our doorstep, but acceptable to let children die while we go to the movies but could save faraway children by giving our movie money to humanitarian aid.

For me, 'moral proximity' is part of it, as this has happened to a person I know.  I am working on seeing if I can do something about it partly based on my own inclinations and perceptions of what can potentially happen.


----------



## wmpdd3

This seems to happen a bit, I know of a person who went to Britain in 2008 for work alone, his relative died in 2009 and he was left a house, the house is worth about €35,000 in good condition but it needs a lot of work, possible €10,00 or more. 

A neighbour cuts the grass but other than that the house is as it was left, the guy has had his house in Britain repossessed now and is looking to move back but has discovered that even if he did want to try live in the inherited house, he owes the bones of €5000 on NPPR tax. 

Can you sell the house to pay the tax or do you need to pay the tax first before you can sell the house.

He has no way of paying this tax, he can't transfer the house to anyone else while this tax is owed.


----------



## RainyDay

amethyst said:


> If you wouldn't help on this issue because you think there are more pressing ones, fair enough.  If you think it is a low priority in your list of issues, fair enough.
> 
> People don't pick issues to work on on the basis that it is the most important issue in the world or the country.  If they did, very few issues would be worked on at all.  Can anyone justify that the spoiling of a view in a local development is more important than disability aid? They pick issues for many reasons, some of it is perception of their own ability to help -- and perception of whether they are likely to be a success.
> 
> Then there is 'moral proximity'.  People feel more morally impelled to prioritize issues that are in some sense closer to them. For this reason, we may consider it reprehensible to let a child die of starvation on our doorstep, but acceptable to let children die while we go to the movies but could save faraway children by giving our movie money to humanitarian aid.
> 
> For me, 'moral proximity' is part of it, as this has happened to a person I know.  I am working on seeing if I can do something about it partly based on my own inclinations and perceptions of what can potentially happen.


All true - fully agree.



amethyst said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by 'credible'.  But getting Alzheimers is a reason for not paying the tax.


While I have the greatest sympathy for any individual dealing with Alzheimers and their family, it doesn't hold up to me as a genuine reason.

In the cases that I've come across, there is usually some family around that is taking care of the person's affairs, either informally or formally through the ward of court process. If there is someone who is there to maintain the property, insure the property, pay the ESB bill and cut the grass, then there is someone who can pay the NPPR bill. 

If there is no-one around to help manage the affairs, then the estate can pay at a later stage. 

The problem seems to arise when there is no-one round to help manage affairs then the person is alive, but only appears to 'help' when the will is being sorted out.


----------



## murphaph

RainyDay said:


> In the cases that I've come across, there is usually some family around that is taking care of the person's affairs, either informally or formally through the ward of court process. If there is someone who is there to maintain the property, insure the property, pay the ESB bill and cut the grass, then there is someone who can pay the NPPR bill.
> 
> If there is no-one around to help manage the affairs, then the estate can pay at a later stage.
> 
> The problem seems to arise when there is no-one round to help manage affairs then the person is alive, but only appears to 'help' when the will is being sorted out.


The ESB bill arrives out to the property and is clearly something that needs paying. If the NPPR was demanded by way of reminder notice like car tax or what have you then you might have a point but the lad cutting the grass may well himself never have heard of the NPPR charge.

Do you think the current penalty for late payment is too little, just right or not enough by the way?

What about other things like the TV licence, are the penalties there stiff enough for your liking?

I'm a firm believer in everyone paying their share and of penalties for non-compliance, but the penalty should reflect the "crime" as it does in most every other walk of life. The 10 km/h over the speed limit is a classic example that I don't think you fully addressed. Why should something that could literally mean the difference between life and death for a pedestrian struck by such a vehicle not carry a more severe penalty than 2 points and a fixed penalty notice? Surely there should be a penalty of instant disqualification as all the driver has to do to avoid this penalty is drive within the designated speed limits at all times, as I'm sure you do.


----------



## RainyDay

murphaph said:


> Do you think the current penalty for late payment is too little, just right or not enough by the way?


I really haven't looked that closely at it.



murphaph said:


> What about other things like the TV licence, are the penalties there stiff enough for your liking?


The idea of people being sent to jail for non-payment, or more specifically, being taken to jail, processed, and then let out through a revolving door after a couple of hours is ridiculous.



murphaph said:


> I'm a firm believer in everyone paying their share and of penalties for non-compliance, but the penalty should reflect the "crime" as it does in most every other walk of life. The 10 km/h over the speed limit is a classic example that I don't think you fully addressed. Why should something that could literally mean the difference between life and death for a pedestrian struck by such a vehicle not carry a more severe penalty than 2 points and a fixed penalty notice? Surely there should be a penalty of instant disqualification as all the driver has to do to avoid this penalty is drive within the designated speed limits at all times, as I'm sure you do.


You're right, I didn't address this. And I won't be addressing it or any other ridiculous scenarios that you dream up.


----------



## hippy1975

RainyDay said:


> In the cases that I've come across, there is usually some family around that is taking care of the person's affairs, either informally or formally through the ward of court process. If there is someone who is there to maintain the property, insure the property, pay the ESB bill and cut the grass, then there is someone who can pay the NPPR bill.
> 
> 
> Okay rainyday, let's take the scenario you describe where someone is ill and someone is looking after their affairs, and do manage to think of and pay the NPPR bill, the property tax, PRTB registration etc. but they're all late because the person has been busy getting the proper care for the person first and all the pandemonium that comes with someone being so ill, why should the penalties for the late NPPR be so disproportionate to the Property Tax and the PRTB for example ???   There is no reason that makes any sense.
> 
> I am currently looking after my brother's affairs since he was diagnosed terminally ill earlier this year, believe me, this stuff takes a back seat behind medical care, emotional care, grief, the list goes on.....
> 
> Anyhoo, because of all that was going on I was about two months late paying his property tax, there wasn't a word said, no penalty, no issue, just thanks for your call is basically what they told me so the NPPR should not be so wildly different.


----------



## RainyDay

hippy1975 said:


> Okay rainyday, let's take the scenario you describe where someone is ill and someone is looking after their affairs, and do manage to think of and pay the NPPR bill, the property tax, PRTB registration etc. but they're all late because the person has been busy getting the proper care for the person first and all the pandemonium that comes with someone being so ill, why should the penalties for the late NPPR be so disproportionate to the Property Tax and the PRTB for example ???   There is no reason that makes any sense.
> 
> I am currently looking after my brother's affairs since he was diagnosed terminally ill earlier this year, believe me, this stuff takes a back seat behind medical care, emotional care, grief, the list goes on.....
> 
> Anyhoo, because of all that was going on I was about two months late paying his property tax, there wasn't a word said, no penalty, no issue, just thanks for your call is basically what they told me so the NPPR should not be so wildly different.



Sorry to hear about your family situation. I'm sure it is very difficult.

If the penalties are low, Revenue will be left to the bottom of the list of things to sort out. If the penalties are high, Revenue will jump to the top of the list of things to sort out.

This is a tax on non-residences. If you have the resources to have/own/keep a 2nd property, then you have the resources to pay the tax on it.


----------



## murphaph

RainyDay said:


> This is a tax on non-residences. If you have the resources to have/own/keep a 2nd property, then you have the resources to pay the tax on it.


You haven't thought this stuff through.

You are liable for the NPPR if you bought into a boom time estate in Carrick on Shannon and now find yourself in massive negative equity, forced to move elsewhere for lower paid work to service the mortgage and renting a room in a house somewhere. 

This person (and there are many of them by the way) is fully liable for the NPPR on their "2nd property" which they CANNOT sell and possibly CANNOT find a tenant for!


----------



## RainyDay

murphaph said:


> You haven't thought this stuff through.
> 
> You are liable for the NPPR if you bought into a boom time estate in Carrick on Shannon and now find yourself in massive negative equity, forced to move elsewhere for lower paid work to service the mortgage and renting a room in a house somewhere.
> 
> This person (and there are many of them by the way) is fully liable for the NPPR on their "2nd property" which they CANNOT sell and possibly CANNOT find a tenant for!



What's that got to do with size of penalties for non-payment?


----------



## hippy1975

RainyDay said:


> Sorry to hear about your family situation. I'm sure it is very difficult.
> 
> If the penalties are low, Revenue will be left to the bottom of the list of things to sort out. If the penalties are high, Revenue will jump to the top of the list of things to sort out.
> 
> Revenue didnt collect the NPPR, councils did.
> Revenue do collect the property tax, those penalties are lower (or none luckily in my brother's case), so in my view amethyst's and others' point stands that the NPPR penalties are not proportionate to the fee or to other penalties for late payment of fees.
> 
> I think at this point rainyday you must accept that there is a valid question here that there is no satisfactory answer for.


----------



## murphaph

RainyDay said:


> What's that got to do with size of penalties for non-payment?


You tell me. You are the one suggesting that merely being liable for the NPPR suggests that a person has the means to pay it. I was just pointing out the error in your logic. Being liable to the NPPR indicates nothing about a person's ability to pay the tax.

You took the position that because a liable person "[has] the resources to have/own/keep a 2nd property, then you have the resources to pay the tax on it." and I believe that statement to be false in many cases. Do you still contend that being liable for the NPPR indicates that you by extension have the means to pay it?


----------



## amethyst

RainyDay has not conceded that if someone paid a year late due to Alzheimer's being involved, and penalties were 120,000% leading to complete loss of the property, that there would be injustice.

Does his point of view here really warrant the attention it is getting?  Maybe we should just be glad he is not on the judicial bench?


----------



## RainyDay

hippy1975 said:


> Revenue didnt collect the NPPR, councils did.
> Revenue do collect the property tax, those penalties are lower (or none luckily in my brother's case), so in my view amethyst's and others' point stands that the NPPR penalties are not proportionate to the fee or to other penalties for late payment of fees.


My point stands, regardless of who is responsible for collecting it. If the penalty is light, the State will be left swinging in the wind by many. If the penalty is heavy, the State won't be left swinging in the wind by many. 



hippy1975 said:


> I think at this point rainyday you must accept that there is a valid question here that there is no satisfactory answer for.



Again, there has been no credible scenario painted to explain why someone would be late in paying the tax.



murphaph said:


> You tell me. You are the one suggesting that merely being liable for the NPPR suggests that a person has the means to pay it. I was just pointing out the error in your logic. Being liable to the NPPR indicates nothing about a person's ability to pay the tax.
> 
> You took the position that because a liable person "[has] the resources to have/own/keep a 2nd property, then you have the resources to pay the tax on it." and I believe that statement to be false in many cases. Do you still contend that being liable for the NPPR indicates that you by extension have the means to pay it?


If somebody has an asset, they have some income from that asset. There is a rental market for every property, if it is pitched at the right level. If they have income, they can pay the tax. If their mortgage exceeds the rental, then if the choose to pay the bank first (improving their own net worth in the process) then the State is left swinging in the wind. If the penalty is high, they will put the State first.



amethyst said:


> RainyDay has not conceded that if someone paid a year late due to Alzheimer's being involved, and penalties were 120,000% leading to complete loss of the property, that there would be injustice.


Is there any chance that we could stick to discussing realistic situations and not plucking ridiculous hypothetical scenarios out of the air?

So again, tell me about the property owned by the person with Alzheimer's - who is paying the ESB bill? who is insuring the property? who is fixing the water leak?


----------



## murphaph

RainyDay said:


> If somebody has an asset, they have some income from that asset.


A property in negative equity it is a liability, not an asset ;-)



RainyDay said:


> There is a rental market for every property, if it is pitched at the right level. If they have income, they can pay the tax. If their mortgage exceeds the rental, then if the choose to pay the bank first (improving their own net worth in the process) then the State is left swinging in the wind. If the penalty is high, they will put the State first.


So you believe not that the NPPR penalties are too high, but rather that the penalties for non-compliance wrt other taxes are too low? This is the only logical conclusion from your argument as presented.

By the way, some property in Ireland in 2013 really is not tenant-able as there are no jobs in the area and people, including the previous occupant and owner have simply left to find work somewhere with better prospects. 



RainyDay said:


> So again, tell me about the property owned by the person with Alzheimer's - who is paying the ESB bill? who is insuring the property? who is fixing the water leak?


The guy who lives next door in his own home and doesn't own any other residential property and thus has never even heard of the NPPR ;-)


----------



## RainyDay

murphaph said:


> A property in negative equity it is a liability, not an asset ;-)
> 
> By the way, some property in Ireland in 2013 really is not tenant-able as there are no jobs in the area and people, including the previous occupant and owner have simply left to find work somewhere with better prospects.


So if there really is an untenantable negative equity property out there, then the owner needs to get that situation sorted, whether through bankruptcy or whatever. The NPPR isn't material in that overall situation.



murphaph said:


> So you believe not that the NPPR penalties are too high, but rather that the penalties for non-compliance wrt other taxes are too low? This is the only logical conclusion from your argument as presented.


That isn't a logical conclusion. That is an illogical, exaggerated, provocative, trolling conclusion.



murphaph said:


> The guy who lives next door in his own home and doesn't own any other residential property and thus has never even heard of the NPPR ;-)


I'm not quite sure how a neighbour ends up paying somebody's house insurance, so it doesn't seem like a very realistic scenario, but here goes. OK, so the guy next door doesn't have any skin in the game. The neighbour doesn't really care whether the value of the property is eaten up by charges and penalties. 

If there is a relative/beneficiary out there who cares about the end value of their inheritance, let them get the NPPR charge sorted. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, just like in other areas, for the very good reason that every chancer in the country will come back with 'Aw I didn't know' at the end of the day if they get away with it.


----------



## murphaph

Then I ask again, why not jack up the penalties for all late payment of all taxes, fines and charges due to the state? 

Why should the NPPR stand alone with such high interest rates attached if it's such a good idea to charge punitive rates to ensure compliance?


----------



## Luternau

@rainyday
The simple fact of the matter is that the tax is fair, the penalty is not. The application of these penalties was poorly thought through. Revenue, who are well able to collect taxes and penalties, charge about 9% pa on late taxes and if penalties are levied, they are normally related to the tax owed-and there is discretion.
The question is, why not follow a similar proven line for NPPR? Now that responsibility for collecting it will be with Revenue, why should there be a two tier system for income tax/NPPR defaulters? Many income tax defaulters will pay less interest and penalties than NPPR defaulters. Why so inequitable? That is the point of this thread-everything else (reason for late payment etc) is moot.


----------



## amethyst

Again, as far as I see it, RainyDay does not *do* _disproportionate punishment_ as a concept. At least, not if NPPR is involved.

The NPPR late penalties are ~13 TIMES the regular income tax penalties. The penalties exceed the amount due in 10 months, less than one year.

The penalties are excessive and also arbitrary.


----------



## ajapale

Luternau said:


> The tax is fair, the penalty is not.
> 
> That is the point of this thread-everything else (reason for late payment etc) is moot.



Nice summary Luthernau.

Would that be a good note in which to close the thread?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

It was suggested to me that the closure of this thread has prevented people from being updated on the facts of the case and the potential for challenging the charge. 

I had a look at the thread to see if I could extract the "practical" issues from the  "debating" issues, but it's not really possible.

Would someone like to start a new thread as  a Key Post which would be a useful summary 



1) Summarise  the facts of the case - an FAQ format is often the best way.
2) Set out the options for appealing/challenging 

Avoid inflammatory language e.g. "extortionate". 


If someone does this, we will moderate the thread heavily and remove any debate on the appropriateness or not of the penalties which has been covered extensively in this thread.


----------

