# High Court Rules NPPR IS Tax-Deductible



## T McGibney

The High Court has ruled that the NPPR charge, imposed between 2009 and 2013, is tax-deductible against rental income. 

Revenue (and iirc some politicians) had claimed it wasn't. 

Shamefully, if you followed their negligent guidance, it's too late to recoup the tax deductions for 2009 to 2012. 

The relief for 2013 can still be claimed up to the end of this year. 

https://mcgibney.ie/2017/01/16/finally-high-court-rules-nppr-is-tax-deductible/


----------



## Bronte

HA HA HA.

I was right.  I can't wait to email  my accountant.  .

And for the record I claimed it.  I discussed it with a different accountant in Dublin via my landlord association Irish Property Owners association and he told me everybody was claiming it.

In addition I claim my LPT too and I'm preparted to go all the way, court too with that.

I knew revenue were wrong.

Thanks Tommy for the heads up - you and I had many the battle on this.


----------



## Bronte

I read your excellent blog post on your website Tommy.

So much for revenue 'guidance'.

And I think it's disgusting the carry on of revenue in relation to this. They promised they would do a briefing and they never did.

And there was some accountants 'body' that wrote to revenue and got a mealy mouth reply (I have a copy of that somewhere) and they should have taken a test case back then.

I'm surprised revenue went all the way to the HC though.  I thought they would have capitulated before that.  As in settled with that one objecter.

It was a lot of money because it was per unit and not per property.


----------



## T McGibney

It is indeed disgusting. And the same craic is going on now with the Local Property Tax, which both Revenue and Michael Noonan have explicitly claimed is not tax-deductible in respect of rental properties.   This judgment is very embarrassing for both but our news media are so poor and in awe of Revenue that there will barely be a word about it.


----------



## Bronte

Tommy, I haven't read the judgement yet as I was so excited about it that I'm not able to concentrate.  I've told my accountant and sent him the link and your website etc.  I hired him from AAM so he's aware of you. 

When I read it I'll come back but I would argue that this means the LPT should also be deductable. 

You should contact Joe Duffy who had weeks of debate about NPPR a few years ago.  This is just the kind of juicy story he loves. 

What was the name of the poster on here Montegrat or something, who was well up on tax?


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> I would argue that this means the LPT should also be deductable.


+1. Beyond question.

He was a Revenue official who went under the username Mandelbrot.  He's no longer active. I presume Revenue officials are discouraged from involving themselves in online discussions about tax.


----------



## Bronte

That was him.  Thanks.  (yes I knew he was revenue, and I'm aware that he and people from other state organisations post on here)  He was pretty good.  I must dig out our old 'discussions' on this topic.


----------



## Ceist Beag

> *Conclusions*
> 16. It is clear from the legislation underpinning the NPPR that the charge is constructed in a way expressly designed to ensure that the revenue achieved is attributable entirely to the local authority. It mandates that the collected funds are steered in one direction only – locally and away from central government.


This seems to clearly suggest that the LPT is also tax deductible as the very same argument can be made for it.


----------



## Sarenco

T McGibney said:


> +1. Beyond question.



I don't agree that it's "beyond question".  At best it's arguable.

Here's the key conclusion from the judgment:-

"It is clear from the legislation underpinning the NPPR that the charge is constructed in a way expressly designed to ensure that the revenue achieved is attributable entirely to the local authority. It mandates that the collected funds are steered in one direction only – locally and away from central government. To conclude in these circumstances that the charge is in reality a national one, as contended by the appellants, would be contrived and artificial and contrary to the intent of the statute (namely the *Local Government (Charges) *Act, 2009). The legislature is the architect of a framework specifically engineered to ensure the resulting revenue stream flows directly into the coffers of the local authority. If anything, central government is deliberately bypassed to allow local authorities to be the collectors of the generated proceeds and are indeed empowered to prosecute defaulters. The government’s involvement is effectively to design and sign off on a system which takes it out of the loop and distances itself from what to all intents and purposes is a tax or charge levied by the local authority."

1.  Is LPT "constructed in a way expressly designed to ensure that the revenue achieved is attributable entirely to the local authority"?  No.
2.  Is LPT "steered in one direction only – locally and away from central government".  No.
3.  Is LPT "specifically engineered to ensure the resulting revenue stream flows directly into the coffers of the local authority".  No.
4.  Are local authorities "the collectors of the generated proceeds".  No.
5.  Are local authorities "empowered to prosecute defaulters".  No.
6.  Is LPT "to all intents and purposes is a tax or charge levied by the local authority".  No.

I certainly agree that LPT _should_ be deductible but it's a bit of stretch, in my opinion, to suggest that this judgment puts the issue "beyond question".


----------



## Sophrosyne

T McGibney said:


> Shamefully, if you followed their negligent guidance, it's too late to recoup the tax deductions for 2009 to 2012.



I wonder whether it is too late for people to apply.

The four-year rule depends on the date on which a “valid claim” was submitted.

According to TCA 1997 s 865:

"For the purposes of subsection (3), a claim to repayment will be regarded as a valid claim where:

(1)(b) (i) *a statement* or return which the taxpayer is required to furnish under the Acts, *contains all the information which Revenue would reasonably require to determine the amount, if any, of the repayment* and the repayment arises out of an assessment made, or that would have been made, at the time the statement or return is delivered, on foot of the statement or return.

(ii) such a statement or return is either not required or it does not contain all the necessary information, when all that information is furnished, and

(iii) a correlative adjustment is concerned, when the amount of the adjustment is agreed by the two States."


Could it be argued that where Revenue had proof that NPPR was paid then that should be regarded as the date of a valid claim?


----------



## T McGibney

Sophrosyne said:


> Could it be argued that where Revenue had proof that NPPR was paid then that should be regarded as the date of a valid claim?



No.  The deduction has be claimed on a tax return or supplementary communication within the 4 year period.


----------



## cremeegg

Excellent news. Hats off to Bronte for having the courage of her own convictions and deducting LPT in the first place.

As regards it being too late now to claim the deduction. Well if it was deducted as an expense in the 2016 computation on the basis that the high court clarified the law in Jan 2017, what would Revenue realistically do but accept it.


----------



## Sarenco

cremeegg said:


> Excellent news. Hats off to Bronte for having the courage of her own convictions and deducting LPT in the first place.
> 
> As regards it being too late now to claim the deduction. Well if it was deducted as an expense in the 2016 computation on the basis that the high court clarified the law in Jan 2017, what would Revenue realistically do but accept it.



Just to be clear, the judgment confirmed that NPPR was deductible - it didn't say anything about LPT.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

The NPPR and LPT are not the same. Isn't the crux of the matter that the NPPR charge is covered by Section 97 whereas LPT isn't?


----------



## T McGibney

Gordon Gekko said:


> The NPPR and LPT are not the same. Isn't the crux of the matter that the NPPR charge is covered by Section 97 whereas LPT isn't?



I'd argue that S97 covers LPT too, if not as "a rate levied by a local authority", as " an expense of management" of the property.


----------



## Sarenco

T McGibney said:


> I'd argue that S97 covers LPT too, if not as "a rate levied by a local authority", as " an expense of management" of the property.



"The cost of maintenance, repairs, insurance and management of the premises borne by the person chargeable and relating to and constituting an expense of the transaction or transactions under which the rents or receipts were received, not being an expense of a capital nature."

Revenue considers the cost of "management" to refer to the actual cost of collection of rents and advertising for tenants, legal fees to cover the drawing up of leases or the issue of solicitors letters to tenants who default on payment of rent.  

I struggle to see how paying LPT has anything to do with the "management" of a premises.


----------



## Sophrosyne

_[broken link removed]_, page 18 deals with repayments arising from mistaken view taken by Revenue.

“Where the repayment arises as a result of a mistaken view taken by Revenue of the tax treatment of some item, and that item had either been correctly dealt with in the return or statement or correctly excluded from the return or statement, the return or statement should be regarded as a valid claim for the purposes of the time limit for claims.”

Revenue will, therefore, accept that a mistaken assumption is established where, for instance, repayments arise because –

The High Court or the Supreme Court or the European Court of Justice has found against Revenue’s interpretation of the law

Revenue accepted a ruling of the Circuit Court or of the Appeal Commissioners that they had incorrectly interpreted a particular provision

Revenue accepted a recommendation of the Ombudsman that they had applied the law incorrectly in a particular case

Revenue otherwise revised its published interpretation of a particular provision or a position adopted, or ruling made, in a particular case. Mistaken assumption would not, however, apply where, in a particular case, Revenue, for whatever reason, settled that case and agreed to repay tax without prejudice to its view of the meaning of a particular legal provision underlying the case.
Apart from the situations indicated above, it is difficult to be more specific. Essentially, repayments will have to be looked at on a case by case basis to determine whether they arise because of a mistaken assumption in the application of the law by Revenue or whether they arise for some other reason.”

I might be clutching at straws here but this would clearly be regarded as a mistaken assumption by Revenue and people would have claimed a deduction for NPPR on their rental returns but for that mistaken view, which was published.


----------



## T McGibney

Sarenco said:


> Revenue considers the cost of "management" to refer to the actual cost of collection of rents and advertising for tenants, legal fees to cover the drawing up of leases or the issue of solicitors letters to tenants who default on payment of rent.


Especially after today, I wouldn't necessarily be taking Revenue's word here as gospel. What does management mean if not attending to the responsibilities and liabilities that attach to ownership of a premises?


----------



## Ceist Beag

Even on revenue's own website they have accepted that LPT should be a deductible expense (source), the Government just haven't got around to bring it into effect yet. Given this ruling it certainly suggests you're better off including LPT as an expense now and let it be challenged by revenue. The worst that can happen is that it isn't allowed. If you don't include it you could well find it's too late to claim it back later.


----------



## Sarenco

T McGibney said:


> What does management mean if not attending to the responsibilities and liabilities that attach to ownership of a premises?



Well, the cost has to relate to the "...management of the premises borne by the person chargeable and relating to and constituting an expense of the transaction or transactions under which the rents or receipts were received".

LPT is not an expense that relates to or constitutes an expense of "the transaction or transactions under which the rents or receipts were received".  LPT arises even if no rent is ever sought or received in respect of the particular premises.


----------



## Meath Lady

I am not well up with tax rules and my accountant didn't claim the expense. However at the end of year 1, I paid stiff penalties for failing to pay NPPR on a property let in 3 units as I had definetly read somewhere on a government website that it was per house and not per unit. I think everybody should claim back the NPPR for all the years 2009 onwards as its a Revenue error and they should have to make allowances for this. Where could we find out if we can make allowances for this NOw.


----------



## Bronte

Meath Lady you are making a mistake, it was always clear to me the NPPR was per unit and not per property. So it was for landlords like me a significant annual charge.

Your accountant was correct not to claim it.

In my case, my accountant advised me off the revenue stance and guidance and I said I accepted his advice and was going against it, as is my perogative as its my tax return. It is not for the fact hearted to claim it, but I felt more than able to challenge revenue on it if they audited me.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

Sarenco said:


> Well, the cost has to relate to the "...management of the premises borne by the person chargeable and relating to and constituting an expense of the transaction or transactions under which the rents or receipts were received".
> 
> LPT is not an expense that relates to or constitutes an expense of "the transaction or transactions under which the rents or receipts were received".  LPT arises even if no rent is ever sought or received in respect of the particular premises.



So does a service charge on an apartment to be fair, and that's deductible.


----------



## Bronte

Sarenco said:


> I don't agree that it's "beyond question".  At best it's arguable.
> 
> Here's the key conclusion from the judgment:-
> 
> "It is clear from the legislation underpinning the NPPR that the charge is constructed in a way expressly designed to ensure that the revenue achieved is attributable entirely to the local authority. It mandates that the collected funds are steered in one direction only – locally and away from central government. To conclude in these circumstances that the charge is in reality a national one, as contended by the appellants, would be contrived and artificial and contrary to the intent of the statute (namely the *Local Government (Charges) *Act, 2009). The legislature is the architect of a framework specifically engineered to ensure the resulting revenue stream flows directly into the coffers of the local authority. If anything, central government is deliberately bypassed to allow local authorities to be the collectors of the generated proceeds and are indeed empowered to prosecute defaulters. The government’s involvement is effectively to design and sign off on a system which takes it out of the loop and distances itself from what to all intents and purposes is a tax or charge levied by the local authority."
> 
> 1.  Is LPT "constructed in a way expressly designed to ensure that the revenue achieved is attributable entirely to the local authority"?  No.
> 2.  Is LPT "steered in one direction only – locally and away from central government".  No.
> 3.  Is LPT "specifically engineered to ensure the resulting revenue stream flows directly into the coffers of the local authority".  No.
> 4.  Are local authorities "the collectors of the generated proceeds".  No.
> 5.  Are local authorities "empowered to prosecute defaulters".  No.
> 6.  Is LPT "to all intents and purposes is a tax or charge levied by the local authority".  No.
> 
> I certainly agree that LPT _should_ be deductible but it's a bit of stretch, in my opinion, to suggest that this judgment puts the issue "beyond question".



I'm not still up to clear on my thinking on this, but two things Spring immediately to mind:

1. who gets the money, isn't it the city/county authority?
2. The local authorities have some power over how much is charged. So much so that the entire country has different 'rates' depending on what they decide.


----------



## Meath Lady

Thanks Bronte. I know I definitely read somewhere in Year 1 that it was per property and not per unit, but could never find it again. I thankfully only had to pay the penalties for I year on two units and learnt my lesson the hard way. I therefore ensured that when it came to property tax  that I had it in writing it was per house and not per unit in case anything changed. Fair play to you Bronte.
However do you think there would be a problem offsetting this back charge this year for years from 2009  as Revenue made the error .


----------



## Bronte

Meath Lady, it's entirely possible that at some point you read that. And revenue can and do make mistakes, especially when it's a new tax rule.  I went into them on something after a budget years ago and proved they were wrong. Mortgage interest if I remember correctly.

And like you at some stage I think there was discussion about units for the LPT on here.

About back claims, accountant, Tommy says no, only 2013. But another poster suggests there is some hope.  This isn't over for you not yet.

If that is correct I'd be amazed if revenue didn't appeal this case. We are talking serious money precisely because it was per unit and not per property.


----------



## Bronte

Also guys, don't forget the household change, one year, 100 euro,


----------



## Bronte

Meath Lady said:


> Thanks Bronte. I know I definitely read somewhere in Year 1 that it was per property and not per unit, but could never find it again. I thankfully only had to pay the penalties for I year on two units and learnt my lesson the hard way. I therefore ensured that when it came to property tax  that I had it in writing it was per house and not per unit in case anything changed. Fair play to you Bronte.
> However do you think there would be a problem offsetting this back charge this year for years from 2009  as Revenue made the error .



Forgot to say ouch, that it was penal in the extreme, especially as many people, especially those abroad, didn't know anything about it.


----------



## Sarenco

Bronte said:


> 1. who gets the money, isn't it the city/county authority?



No, it's collected by Revenue and goes to the central exchequer in the first instance.



Bronte said:


> 2. The local authorities have some power over how much is charged.



Yes, in 2015 local authorities were given the power to increase or decrease the amount levied centrally by up to 15%.  It's worth noting that local authorities themselves are liable to pay LPT.


----------



## Sarenco

Gordon Gekko said:


> So does a service charge on an apartment to be fair, and that's deductible.



It is but a service charge relates to the cost of "maintenance, repairs [and] insurance" - it doesn't relate to the cost of managing the rental.


----------



## Bronte

Why is it called 'local'

What was its purpose? Who ultimately gets the money?

Why does the local authorities have a say on the percentage?


----------



## Bronte

http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/def...ment/Administration/FileDownLoad,31669,en.Pdf

See appendix five, about local authorities.

It replaced the household charge.


----------



## Sarenco

Bronte

You can read about it in the inter-departmental group report that originally formulated the LPT:-

http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/def...ment/Administration/FileDownLoad,31669,en.Pdf

You will also note their recommendation that legislation should be introduced to make LPT a deductible expense on a phased basis.  Unfortunately, the Government hasn't acted on that recommendation as yet.


----------



## Meath Lady

Thanks Bronte. I will definitely be watching this space


----------



## Sarenco

Bronte said:


> http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/def...ment/Administration/FileDownLoad,31669,en.Pdf
> 
> See appendix four, about local authorities.
> 
> It replaced the household charge.



Sorry Bronte - I've just realised that we linked to the same document.

Did you mean to refer to Appendix 5?  That makes my point that LPT is administered by Revenue and paid into a central fund from which grants are made to local authorities - LPT is not levied or collected by local authorities.


----------



## Bronte

Sarenco I can't currently read that document. I'll have a look tomorrow.


----------



## Bronte

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/...c4a8cfe246ded89c802580a4004101d7?OpenDocument

*Summary*

Thomas Collins a landlord of six properties argued with revenue that NPPR should be tax deductable.  He went all the way to the top of their procedures to the Appeal Commissioner who *agreed* with him, that NPPR is a rate and therefore allowable.

_The NPPR C*harge* ia a rate levied by a local authority ... the ordinary meaning of 'any rate levied by a local authoirty, includes the Charge._

Revenue weren't happy with this, so they appealed it.  Which means the High Court.

Revenue argued the Charge was not a rate.

Collins had two arguments.

1. The Charge is a rate
2. Double taxation - he lost on this and I'll not go into it.

Court decided that the ordinary meaning of 'any rate levied by a local authority' must be given it's ordinary meaning as a member of the public would understand it and therefore the Charge is a rate.


----------



## Bronte

THE POWER OF REVENUE

Tomas Collins is a landlord, like many of us on here, just ordinary mere folk.  He was very brave to go to the AC.  Which is a free procedure and you can represent yourself.  I presume though he had his accountant with him.  It's the end of the line for decisions with revenue.  Except then the next level of appeal is a whole different ball game.

It is likely Collins would have accepted the AC's decison if it had gone against him.  As what mere tax payer would risk a High Court challenge.  But revenue operate under no such restrictions.

Which I consider to be an abuse of power.  I'd like other posters views on that.

I'd also like to acknowledge that Thomas Collins is a very brave man who must have had very many sleepless nights.  Can you just imagine ending up in the High Court against an organisation as large as Revenue, which even the very mention of it's name sends shivers down the spine of most people.


----------



## Bronte

WHY DID REVENUE NOT NOTIFY TAX PRACTICIONERS OF THE AC'S DECISION

The AC decided for Collins in 2013.  Meaning that every single other tax payer could have been made aware that Revenue were wrong.  Or even that there was now a major doubt on Revenue's 'guidance/rules/opinion' of whether the NPPR is tax deductable. And our accountants could have told us taxpayers to put it into our return, including backdating it to when it began in 2009 under the four year tax limit.

Do Revenue not have an obligation to taxpayers when such a situation arrises on such a major issue.  Remember for Collins it was six properties, so an annual hefty €1,200 not deductable over quite a number of years.

Then we get to 2016.  November.  Even then Revenue could have notified practicioners, and landlords would be able to claim it back for two years.  But nothing from them.

(Tommy how did you get to hear of the court case?)


----------



## odyssey06

If the Appeal Commissioner agreed with Mr Collins, then it should be up to them to fight his case in any court, and not an ordinary member of the public.

In terms of balancing the scales, in the US this likely would have been pursued as a class action suit... Clearly there were enough landlords here who would have pursued that approach collectively - we need better legislation to enable such actions.


----------



## Bronte

That's an interesting point Odyssey.  I would agree with that.  That where the AC agrees with you and Revenue disagrees, and they are so so powerful with the best legal firms at their little fingertips, that the AC should be allowed to equally hire a legal firm to fight revenue on your behalf.

As I've no clue of this area, is it true to say that Collins would be hit for his own legal fees and those of revenue if he lost?

Also do we have any way of knowing how much Revenue have spent on this so far.  Do we know if they are appealing it?

(Something else, you guys are practioners and your real names are on here, if you feel that constrains you in what you want to say about revenue, please PM me, I've no problem putting it out on here and you guys know me for many years and I'd never ever divulge who you are, I'm also abroad so I honestly have no fear of revenue - being tax compliant is also a biggie, so I've no fears of audit etc)


----------



## Bronte

Meath Lady said:


> Thanks Bronte. I will definitely be watching this space



Just want to point out something Meath Lady, I'm no expert on anything, so I'm just an ordinary taxpaying landlord like you.  But I do know one thing, revenue guidence and briefings etc, they are not always the law.  The law is what is in the legislation and what a court decides that legislation means, not what revenue thinks it means.  Here we see that revenue's guidence, it's letter to the Irish Tax Institute was incorrect but accountants have to/must/would be foolish not to, advice clients as per the Revenue guidance.  So for examply my accountant told me I couldn't deduct it.  And he was absolutely correct. 

Some of you don't remember, but Revenue rowed back on another deductable years ago - life insurance, as long as it was the cheap term time one on investment properties.


----------



## Bronte

Sophrosyne said:


> I wonder whether it is too late for people to apply.
> 
> The four-year rule depends on the date on which a “valid claim” was submitted.
> 
> According to TCA 1997 s 865:
> 
> "For the purposes of subsection (3), a claim to repayment will be regarded as a valid claim where:
> 
> (1)(b) (i) *a statement* or return which the taxpayer is required to furnish under the Acts, *contains all the information which Revenue would reasonably require to determine the amount, if any, of the repayment* and the repayment arises out of an assessment made, or that would have been made, at the time the statement or return is delivered, on foot of the statement or return.
> 
> (ii) such a statement or return is either not required or it does not contain all the necessary information, when all that information is furnished, and
> 
> (iii) a correlative adjustment is concerned, when the amount of the adjustment is agreed by the two States."
> 
> 
> Could it be argued that where Revenue had proof that NPPR was paid then that should be regarded as the date of a valid claim?



But what about this:

_but all entitlements to repayment are made subject to the time limits contained in Section 865.
_
And further on it states:

*
Time limit for making a claim for repayment
*
_Section 865(4) provides new time limits for the making of claims. In general, a valid claim to repayment must be made within 4 years after the end of the chargeable period to which the claim relates. All claims under the new general repayment provision, Section 865(2), must be made within this time limit._


----------



## Bronte

TIME LIMITS

Another interesting point Sophrosyne from that briefing is this:


_The reference to tax which is not due is to be taken as including tax that has been charged in an assessment which has become final and conclusive but which is later
found to have been charged incorrectly. This may arise where, for instance, the Appeal Commissioners or the Higher Courts find in another case, with similar facts, that the tax is not chargeable and the Revenue Commissioners decide not to appeal against that decision. It may also arise where the Revenue Commissioners accept, in a case with similar facts, without going to appeal, that a different interpretation of the law than that adopted in other cases is correct.
_
Revenue knew about the mega decision from the AC, and it was mega, but they decided to appeal it.  Did they do so deliberately knowing it would delay things until the four year time limit was up I wonder.


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> So for example my accountant told me I couldn't deduct it.  And he was absolutely correct.



He wasn't actually. He chose to substitute an illogical Revenue opinion for his own professional judgment. Anyone who followed his advice lost out. A properly professional approach would have been to explain to his customers what Revenue were saying (while noting out that Revenue don't make the law but merely interpret and implement it), what his own opinion was, and invite them to make up their own minds on it.


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> (Tommy how did you get to hear of the court case?)



A members' update from Chartered Accountants Ireland, yesterday.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Bronte,

Usually, the 4-year rule stands.

The only point I was making was that in _this _case, Revenue's published view was that NPPR was inadmissible as a deduction against rental income, a view that was found to be mistaken by the High Court.

The date of the valid claim would have been the date the rental returns were submitted.

If people claimed a deduction for NPPR, assessments should be amended.

However, even if they did not, I believe they should still receive the deduction for the years concerned as failure to claim was due to an adherence to Revenue's incorrect interpretation of the TCA 1997 rather than an omission by landlords and/or their accountants.

You are right in that Revenue is in a unique position of power and not everyone has the inclination nor indeed the resources to go to the High Court.

Hopefully, common sense will prevail.


----------



## Bronte

T McGibney said:


> He wasn't actually. He chose to substitute an illogical Revenue opinion for his own professional judgment. Anyone who followed his advice lost out. A properly professional approach would have been to explain to his customers what Revenue were saying (while noting out that Revenue don't make the law but merely interpret and implement it), what his own opinion was, and invite them to make up their own minds on it.



No way can you say that.  Because accountants aren't legal professionals.  The point of Revenue guidance and Tax briefings is to help professionals like you in how you apply tax law. 

What would you say if the case had gone differently.  None of us could have predicted it with 100% accuracy.  And if it was so obvious why didn't the accuontants body take test case long ago.  And why did the Irish Tax just accept the letter from revenue which said it wasn't allowable? And how come they still have it as 'fact' on their website.

If you were my accountant and you told me against revenue guidance that revenue were wrong and I should just claim it, then if I were audited and penalised I'd be mightly pissed off with you.  Instead I was given the best advice and it was the correct advice and I myself choose to go against it.  That it was on my head.


----------



## Sarenco

Sophrosyne said:


> The only point I was making was that in _this _case, Revenue's published view was that NPPR was inadmissible as a deduction against rental income, a view that was found to be mistaken by the High Court.



Did Revenue ever actually publish their view that NPPR was inadmissible as a deduction against rental income? 

My memory was that the Tax Institute published a note to practitioners to the effect that Revenue had indicated that this was their view but (and I'm certainly open to correction on this point) Revenue never actually went into writing on the point.  

In any event, my sense is that the majority of impacted taxpayers did in fact (quite correctly) claim NPPR as a deduction.


----------



## Bronte

Sophrosyne said:


> .
> 
> Hopefully, common sense will prevail.



That I agree with. And the right thing is that pepole are allowed claim it. The fact revenue went all the way to the HC against their own Appeal Commissioner and against a single taxpayer wouldn't make me think that will happen though. Heck they haven't even notified the professionals that it can now be claimed !!  And more importantly they didn't notifice them in 2013 when the AC made the decision, nor last year when the HC decision was made.


----------



## Bronte

Sarenco said:


> Did Revenue ever actually publish their view that NPPR was inadmissible as a deduction against rental income?
> 
> My memory was that the Tax Institute published a note to practitioners to the effect that Revenue had indicated that this was their view but (and I'm certainly open to correction on this point) Revenue never actually went into writing on the point.
> 
> In any event, my sense is that the majority of impacted taxpayers did in fact (quite correctly) claim NPPR as a deduction.



Revenue wrote a letter.  To the Tax institute if I remember rightly Tommy or one of the others might have a copy of that letter. I filed it somewhere years ago. It used to be online.

Revenue also promised they would do a tax briefing on the matter and they never did.


----------



## Bronte

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/threads/is-the-€200-nppr-local-authority-charge-a-tax-deductible-expense.136219/

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/thread...-property-tax-as-expense.176115/#post-1312096

Next one is more interesting:

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/threads/no-case-v-deduction-for-nppr-and-the-household-charge.165348/

Poster Oldnick, a landlord, was great.  And Tommy, you there said you would be foolish to go against revenue advice.  And there in black and white is OldNick totally right about it being a rate.


----------



## Sarenco

Bronte said:


> Revenue wrote a letter.  To the Tax institute if I remember rightly Tommy or one of the others might have a copy of that letter. I filed it somewhere years ago. It used to be online.



Indeed but did Revenue ever publish their position? 

From the thread that you linked to, Oldnick posted as follows:



oldnick said:


> After all, the aforementioned Irish taxation Institute firmly believes that the NPRR should be an allowable expence -as per letter form the director of ITI to Revenue on 23 Sept 2010
> _" we consider that the NPRR charge should be deductible as a rental expence "_
> 
> Whilst Revenue may hold a dissenting a view (as expressed by Eugene Creighton, Asst sec Income and Capiotal Taxation,Revenue) in his reply to ITI on 18 Oct 2010, *it is not a view that has been made public by Revenue*.
> 
> It would seem unreasonable for private landlords to have to refer to correspondence or meetings (e.g TALC)between Revenue and accountants.
> 
> Until Revenue makes the position clear and public then landlords can decide for themselves whether to declare NPPR as an expence.
> If they do get it wrong what's the worse that can happen ? Revenue will just disallow it.




That certainly accords with my memory of events and my sense was that the majority of impacted taxpayers did in fact (quite correctly) claim NPPR as a deduction.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Sarenco said:


> Did Revenue ever actually publish their view that NPPR was inadmissible as a deduction against rental income?



Extract from Revenue Leaflet IT 70:

*"What Expenditure Cannot Be Deducted?*
The following are examples of expenditure you may not deduct when computing your rental income or losses:


Pre-letting expenses, i.e. expenses incurred prior to the date on which the premises was first let apart from auctioneer’s letting fees, advertising fees and legal expenses incurred on first lettings,

 Expenditure incurred between lettings in certain circumstances,

Interest in the period following the purchase of the property up to the time a tenant enters into a lease and after the final letting,

Post-letting expenses, i.e. expenses incurred after the final letting,

Capital expenditure incurred on additions, alterations or improvements to the premises unless allowable under an incentive scheme or incurred on fixtures and fittings,

Expenses incurred in the letting of premises on an uneconomic basis,

Expenses incurred on lettings that are exempt under the Rent-a-Room provisions,

*The charge on residential property (sometimes referred to as the second home charge) introduced by the Local Government (Charges) Act 2009."*


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> No way can you say that.  Because accountants aren't legal professionals.  The point of Revenue guidance and Tax briefings is to help professionals like you in how you apply tax law.


The point of any professional adviser is to present the facts of a situation to a paying customer, along with the professional's own opinion if that is relevant and/or requested. It's up to the customer to form their own opinion on that basis. The customer is free to disregard the professional's opinion if they see fit.



Bronte said:


> What would you say if the case had gone differently.


I would have said "the court got it wrong".




Bronte said:


> And if it was so obvious why didn't the accountants body take test case long ago.


You'll need to ask them that. They'll probably tell you it's not their job to take cases on behalf of their members.



Bronte said:


> And why did the Irish Tax just accept the letter from revenue which said it wasn't allowable?


Ditto.


> And how come they still have it as 'fact' on their website.


Ditto again. (Do remember though that Revenue are in the tax collection business, not the tax advisory business.)


Bronte said:


> If you were my accountant and you told me against revenue guidance that revenue were wrong and I should just claim it, then if I were audited and penalised I'd be mightly pissed off with you.


Except I never said that. (Do please read back what I did say).

And I think you should withdraw any suggestion that I did.



Bronte said:


> Instead I was given the best advice and it was the correct advice


No. It was the wrong advice. Had you followed it, you'd now be out of pocket.


----------



## T McGibney

Sarenco said:


> my sense was that the majority of impacted taxpayers did in fact (quite correctly) claim NPPR as a deduction.



Mine too - except for obvious reasons we couldn't disclose this publicly at the time.


----------



## Bronte

T McGibney said:


> Mine too - except for obvious reasons we couldn't disclose this publicly at the time.



_You said this:

Me? No. Non-deduction makes no logical sense to me. That said, Revenue have stated otherwise, albeit unofficially, and it would be foolhardy of me, as a general tax practitioner, to tell everyone that Revenue, and their specialist experts, are wrong and my own reasoning is correct. People can make up their own minds as to whether they want to deduct these costs. I'll keep an open mind on it.
_
_Jan 25, 2012_ _Report_
_
And this poster, GEKKO an accountant said this:

Correct - Costs cannot be awarded.

I've represented clients at a couple of Appeal Hearing and although it's effectively a less formal version of a Court, it'd be nuts for a taxpayer to represent himself/herself.

Interesting and all as this discussion is, my own view is that a landlord would lose at such an appeal. The key point as others have suggested is the term "levied". My understanding is that the NPPR charge and household charge are levied centrally by legislation (i.e. they're provided for and their rates are set by legislation arising at a national level) whereas (say) rates are set by local authorities. On this basis, my own view is that they're not specifically provided for in Section 97 and they're therefore not deductible.

As an aside in relation to the purpose of the NPPR charge, surely the intention at government level is for it NOT to be deductible? I would have thought the aim is to raise €200 times X number of properties, rather than something approaching half that amount if it's tax deductible?
_
_Jan 26, 2012_ _Report_
_
----------------

I've never seen a client claiming a deduction for the NPPR charge.

Every accountant I know is aware of Revenue's position (i.e. that the charge is not deductible). I've never seen a return where the charge has been claimed as a deduction. If a client insisted on claiming a deduction for the charge, their return's cover letter would have to be caveated appropriately.

Any AAM contributor with an interest in this topic knows the position and knows of the Institute's discussions with Revenue and Revenue's position as advanced during those discussions.

A year ago, if you Googled "NPPR+deductible+Revenue", top of the list were AAM threads like this and a link to the ITI's Q&A on the subject where Revenue's position is clearly stated.

I find it odd that contributors have been claiming a deduction for the charge when they've been well aware of the position. The "until I see an eBrief" argument doesn't cut the mustard in my view.

When the Big 4, the ITI, Revenue and every tax consultant on AAM have been advising people that the charge is not deductible, it's a bit rich to have to listen to posters still claiming that the position isn't clear.

Will these taxpayers now make a qualifying disclosure or technical adjustment in relation to any underpayments of tax which have arisen?
_
_Jan 27, 2012_ _Report_


----------



## Bronte

T McGibney said:


> Mine too - except for obvious reasons we couldn't disclose this publicly at the time.



Why could you not be public about it?

By the way on that link one of the accountants mention that KMPG said it wasn't deductable.

Did all your clients deduct it?


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> T McGibney said: ↑
> Mine too - except for obvious reasons we couldn't disclose this publicly at the time.
> 
> You said this:



 That statement falls far short of confirming my private perception at the time that most people were claiming NPPR as a deduction.

The other accountant you quote was clearly talking through his behind. It's quite normal for taxes levied by the State to be allowable deductions for income tax or corporation tax purposes.


----------



## Bronte

Sophrosyne said:


> Extract from Revenue Leaflet IT 70:
> 
> *"What Expenditure Cannot Be Deducted?*
> The following are examples of expenditure you may not deduct when computing your rental income or losses:
> 
> 
> Pre-letting expenses, i.e. expenses incurred prior to the date on which the premises was first let apart from auctioneer’s letting fees, advertising fees and legal expenses incurred on first lettings,
> 
> Expenditure incurred between lettings in certain circumstances,
> 
> Interest in the period following the purchase of the property up to the time a tenant enters into a lease and after the final letting,
> 
> Post-letting expenses, i.e. expenses incurred after the final letting,
> 
> Capital expenditure incurred on additions, alterations or improvements to the premises unless allowable under an incentive scheme or incurred on fixtures and fittings,
> 
> Expenses incurred in the letting of premises on an uneconomic basis,
> 
> Expenses incurred on lettings that are exempt under the Rent-a-Room provisions,
> 
> *The charge on residential property (sometimes referred to as the second home charge) introduced by the Local Government (Charges) Act 2009."*



That's still on the revenue website today.

And it's incorrect.  Since 2013 when the AC said they were wrong.  As confirmed by the HC last year.


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> Why could you not be public about it?



Because I choose to post here using my own name and as such am clearly identifiable from my posts. I also have an obligation to respect the privacy and confidentiality of my customers.



> Did all your clients deduct it?



For the above reasons, I am precluded from answering that question, and you have some cheek to ask it.



> By the way on that link one of the accountants mention that KMPG said it wasn't deductable.


As if that meant anything.

Ps I'm still waiting for you to withdraw the damaging accusation you made earlier about me.


----------



## Bronte

T McGibney said:


> That statement falls far short of confirming my private perception at the time that most people were claiming NPPR as a deduction.
> 
> The other accountant you quote was clearly talking through his behind. It's quite normal for taxes levied by the State to be allowable deductions for income tax or corporation tax purposes.



I don't know if poster Gekko was right or wrong.  How can I a mere tax payer know if you or Gekko or KPMG or the Tax institute or Revenue are correct or not.


----------



## Bronte

T McGibney said:


> Because I choose to post here using my own name and as such am clearly identifiable from my posts. I also have an obligation to respect the privacy and confidentiality of my customers.
> 
> 
> 
> For the above reasons, I am precluded from answering that question, and you have some cheek to ask it.
> 
> 
> As if that meant anything.
> 
> Ps I'm still waiting for you to withdraw the damaging accusation you made earlier about me.



What is wrong with you.  I didn't mean to be cheeky, I was just wondering if they did or didn't.  And I forgot that revenue read this.  But it doens't matter now does it if they did or not because they were right.  So what's the issue.


And I withdraw any damaging accusation I made against you.  I didn't mean to and I'm not sure what it is you think I said.  I admire you as a professional on here.

By the way you've now accused another accountant, on the earlier threads of talking out of their behind.  And they're not hear to defend themselves.  Their view point was just as valid as yours surely.


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> How can I a mere tax payer know if you or Gekko or KPMG or the Tax institute or Revenue are correct or not.



How indeed? Except it's not our job to hold the correct opinions. Our job is to advise and educate our customers on the facts, with the added benefit of our opinion where appropriate, which our customers can accept or reject in arriving at their own decisions.


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> What is wrong with you.  I didn't mean to be cheeky, I was just wondering if they did or didn't.  And I forgot that revenue read this.  *But it doens't matter now does it if they did or not because they were right.  So what's the issue. *



The issue is that I am absolutely precluded from disclosing client affairs in public. Sorry if that puts you out but its a serious issue with serious consequences if I get it wrong.


----------



## Bronte

T McGibney said:


> How indeed? Except it's not our job to hold the correct opinions. Our job is to advise and educate our customers on the facts, with the added benefit of our opinion where appropriate, which our customers can accept or reject in arriving at their own decision.




I think most customers wouldn't have one clue about NPPR and would just accept without thinking whatever the accountant puts in the return.  Because they would be relying on their professional judgement to be the ones who know for sure what is correct or not to claim.


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> I think most customers wouldn't have one clue about NPPR and would just accept without thinking whatever the accountant puts in the return.  Because they would be relying on their professional judgement to be the ones who know for sure what is correct or not to claim.


That may be so in many cases but it doesn't alter or contradict what I said. The ultimate responsibility for the contents of a tax return rests with the customer. If they choose to abdicate this responsibility, that's not their professional agent's problem. But if they ask the professional for clarification or advice on any point, the professional has an obligation to give their informed opinion. Simply rattling off third party opinion may or may not suffice, especially if the third party opinion looks or sounds dubious. And the customer can accept or disregard the professional's opinion.


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> By the way you've now accused another accountant, on the earlier threads of talking out of their behind.  And they're not hear to defend themselves.  Their view point was just as valid as yours surely.



I did so inadvertently, because when you posted their opinion, you didn't identify them, but merely referred to them as "an accountant". Then, after I had read that and commented accordingly, you went back in and edited your post to include their username - in capitals.  Classy...


----------



## Gordon Gekko

Bronte said:


> THE POWER OF REVENUE
> 
> Tomas Collins is a landlord, like many of us on here, just ordinary mere folk.  He was very brave to go to the AC.  Which is a free procedure and you can represent yourself.  I presume though he had his accountant with him.  It's the end of the line for decisions with revenue.  Except then the next level of appeal is a whole different ball game.
> 
> It is likely Collins would have accepted the AC's decison if it had gone against him.  As what mere tax payer would risk a High Court challenge.  But revenue operate under no such restrictions.
> 
> Which I consider to be an abuse of power.  I'd like other posters views on that.
> 
> I'd also like to acknowledge that Thomas Collins is a very brave man who must have had very many sleepless nights.  Can you just imagine ending up in the High Court against an organisation as large as Revenue, which even the very mention of it's name sends shivers down the spine of most people.



Revenue use the Appeals process as a stick to beat and bully taxpayers. They effectively have bottomless pockets whereas taxpayers generally don't. Something going to the High Court is especially daunting from a cost perspective. 

Where is the accountability? Whose head will be on the block for wasting precious time and resources on a case that had already been lost once and which a layperson could see was probably a loser.


----------



## Bronte

Yes I did go back in and put the name up, but nothing to do with you.  I put it up there as when I copy pasted I later realised the names weren't showing up.  But it was plain it was from a linked thread I'd posted up and I put the date stamp on it so you could easily see who it was. 

Anyway you and I are not going to agree on this.  As far as I'm concered the entire thing is a mess and we knew this from the beginning.


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> Yes I did go back in and put the name up, but nothing to do with you.  I put it up there as when I copy pasted I later realised the names weren't showing up.  But it was plain it was from a linked thread I'd posted up and I put the date stamp on it so you could easily see who it was.



I didn't see who it was. And frankly its unpleasant to dig up old threads to highlight others' posts that have been contradicted in hindsight. We are all trying our best but none of us has a monopoly on wisdom.


----------



## Sarenco

Sophrosyne said:


> Extract from Revenue Leaflet IT 70:
> 
> *"What Expenditure Cannot Be Deducted?*
> 
> 
> *The charge on residential property (sometimes referred to as the second home charge) introduced by the Local Government (Charges) Act 2009."*



Thanks.

I noticed in reading back through one of the earlier threads that Revenue apparently only amended that guidance in 2012 - even though the NPPR was introduced in 2009.  I'm not sure that anything really turns on it but the timing might be relevant.


----------



## T McGibney

Sarenco said:


> I noticed in reading back through one of the earlier threads that Revenue apparently only amended that guidance in 2012 - even though the NPPR was introduced in 2009.  I'm not sure that anything really turns on it but the timing might be relevant.



Yeah, I'm not sure of the dates but Revenue were very slow to confirm the tax treatment of the NPPR charge on their website or on an eBrief or other technical update. I think the first suggestion that it wouldn't be treated as an allowable deduction came from an unscripted comment at a conference or similar event.  Their apparent reluctance to commit to anything definitive only added to the later confusion.


----------



## Bronte

This is a link to where we discussed the 'letter' from revenue to the Irish Tax institute. The link where Tommy has posted up that link but the URL is broken.

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/thread...on-whether-nppr-fee-is-tax-deductible.156731/

We debated it on here and Oldnick and myself were arguing against a revenue person Mandelbrot.  Here was my analysis of the letter:

_only made a cursory reading of the letter yesterday but have had a closer examination last night. The letter is designed as are most civil servant letters to not actually state what the real situation is as the civil servant in question, SW, does not actually know, even though he is probably quite senior. The giveaway is in the last paragraph of page one. 'without forming an opinion'. What he means is that only a court can decide the law on whether the NPPR is a rate or not. He's playing around with words in relation to how or what is 'levying' the charge. When is a charge, cost, bill, a rate?
Tax briefings are only an interpretation of revenue's stance, as is that letter. Those interpretations can and do change over time. They can be wrong.
The Irish Taxation Institute has written to clarify the matter. They seem to have had 2 arguments 
1. That is should be allowed under section 97 (1) of the 1997 Act and 
2. Somehow it should be allowed outside of the legislation
Tax Institute should write back and ask what is a 'rate' exactly. And what is the difference between the 'charge being 'administered ' and being 'levied' by the local authority. If they do it will drive revenue nuts. They don't like to be specific, especially when on shaky ground. 

The above is only my conjecture and opinion. No doubt the tax institute have the very best revenue lawyers working on it, whereas this poster is a mere blogger. 

Plus it's fundamentally unfair that a charge is not deducatable. It's a cost to doing business. And that's all it is and so should be deductable. Would be interesting to know does the money collected go into the same account in the local authorities as rates, and presumable spent in the same way. _

_Jun 16, 2011_ _Report_


----------



## Bronte

Can't find the letter. So I went back on my tax returns.  In 2013 I decided to claim it when doing my 2012 return, backdating to 2009.  And I have discovered the letter from revenue was on the 18th Oct, 2010 to Shane Wallace of the ITI.

My accountant warned me that if revenue audited me and I was found liable, then revenue would look for the tax and interest/penalties.  And his opinion was that if I claimed something revenue had said was not allowable, that might attract a higher penalty.  I think that was superb advice.  And I did not follow the advice.  As is my right.  Having informed myself fully of the dire consequences.


----------



## Bronte

HOUSEHOLD CHARGE

www.revenue.ie/en/practitioner/talc/archive/talc-minutes-091211.pdf


*Main TALC *

*Minutes of Meeting held 9 December 2011


Household charge 


Revenue confirmed that the €100 charge will apply to both owner occupier and investment properties (residential). In addition, the charge will not be an allowable deduction for Case V purposes. This follows similar treatment for the NPPR charge.
*


----------



## Sarenco

The Household Charge was collected and enforced by Revenue and paid into a central exchequer fund in the first instance.  Unlike the NPPR, I think you would struggle to successfully argue that it constituted “a rate levied by a local authority”.


----------



## Lone Star

linked to NPPR - but slightly off topic; for reasons I won't go into; for a few years I was unable to pay the NPPR - Property when sold was then hit with the huge unpaid nppr fees. I am currently appealing those - and will update on the outcome. starting locally and will escalate to Europe if need be.


----------



## PaddyBloggit

Lone Star said:


> linked to NPPR - but slightly off topic; for reasons I won't go into; for a few years I was unable to pay the NPPR - Property when sold was then hit with the huge unpaid nppr fees. I am currently appealing those - and will update on the outcome. starting locally and will escalate to Europe if need be.



Might be of interest to you:

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/thread...ortionate-nppr-late-payment-penalties.191674/

[broken link removed]


----------



## Lone Star

PaddyBloggit said:


> Might be of interest to you:
> 
> http://www.askaboutmoney.com/thread...ortionate-nppr-late-payment-penalties.191674/
> 
> [broken link removed]


Many Thanks PaddyBloggit - I'll look at that now


----------



## Bronte

Lone Star said:


> linked to NPPR - but slightly off topic; for reasons I won't go into; for a few years I was unable to pay the NPPR - Property when sold was then hit with the huge unpaid nppr fees. I am currently appealing those - and will update on the outcome. starting locally and will escalate to Europe if need be.



How can you get around paying NPPR penalties? It's impossible.  As you said yourself you knew about it and didn't pay it.  We debated this on here and as far as I'm aware the conclusion is there was no lee way.


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> How can you get around paying NPPR penalties? It's impossible.  As you said yourself you knew about it and didn't pay it.  We debated this on here and as far as I'm aware the conclusion is there was no lee way.


I'm no legal expert but it would appear to me that the legality of the vicious NPPR penalties (amounting to an interest rate of 10% *per month*) might well be open to challenge in the courts on the grounds that they infringe rights on foot of being excessively harsh. 

There have been stories of  local authorities agreeing to mitigation of these penalties in individual cases and such mitigations may well have been sanctioned to avert the appalling vista for the State of the entire NPPR penalty regime being found illegal in the courts.


----------



## Lone Star

Well gentlemen and ladies, I will keep you posted. I'll quite happily take it to Europe. The penalties were set with spurious abandon-I have yet to receive a Bill for any of the years 2009 to 2013 nor indeed the courtesy of a receipt from the LA. I work with the LA in question and have no hesitation going down the road I have embarked on. I look forward to my refund being spent most likely in the UK or lodging to my uk account on a date with favourable rates. Lone star is not done yet.


----------



## Lone Star

There is difference in 'didn't pay' V 'couldn't pay'. No one knows anyone's situation as well as themselves. It was food V NPPR....


----------



## Bronte

Lonestar there was never a bill sent to any of us. I just paid it online and you print it out as proof of payment.  That's your receipt.  It's the same for the property tax. I get no bill. I pay it in the revenue system and you then print it off when the payment goes through and that's your receipt. 

I see no refund coming for you on any grounds.

And the fact you couldn't pay is neither here nor there.

Tommy I fail to see how your argument that the penalties were excessively harsh would be a legal argument to get the penalties waived.


----------



## T McGibney

> Tommy I fail to see how your argument that the penalties were excessively harsh would be a legal argument to get the penalties waived.



It's hardly unprecedented for a court to waive or set aside a penalty imposed on an individual for a stated offence on the grounds that its imposition would be excessively harsh and/or disproportionate to the offence?


----------



## Lone Star

Well - I'll eat my words if I'm rejected. But I'm quite prepared to take the state on in this matter. A precedent has already been set. I'm actually quite looking forward to feather ruffling!


----------



## Bronte

T McGibney said:


> It's hardly unprecedented for a court to waive or set aside a penalty imposed on an individual for a stated offence on the grounds that its imposition would be excessively harsh and/or disproportionate to the offence?



If it's as simple as this then don't you think it's amazing nobody has taken a case.  The penalties were set by the legislature, I'd be amazed if the courts went against it.


----------



## T McGibney

> If it's as simple as this then don't you think it's amazing nobody has taken a case. The penalties were set by the legislature, I'd be amazed if the courts went against it.


The cost of mounting a court challenge can be prohibitive and the whole experience can be daunting so people generally shy away from it but it's by no means uncommon for the courts to set aside legislative sanctions and penalties whenever they are challenged.


----------



## Bronte

Can you give an example please?


----------



## T McGibney

http://www.farmersjournal.ie/department-to-appeal-against-oconnor-case-224420 http://www.independent.ie/business/farming/department-loses-landmark-case-34856000.html

http://www.independent.ie/business/farming/farmers-challenge-unfair-sfp-penalties-35118782.html


----------



## Bronte

That is not proving what you are saying.  The Independed mentions a challenge, not a case won.  The FJ says this:

_In a recent landmark case against the Department of Agriculture, farmer Michael O'Connor was awarded entitlements held in penalties from what was described as a "*procedurally flawed" inspection*._

This is not that the penalties infringe rights because they are harsh (your words earlier as grounds)    

But that because the procedures of inspection were flawed, ie carried out incorrectly, then it follows the penalties cannot follow.

If I thought there was a ghost of a chance when I was helping a relation years ago in relation to selling a property, that I had warned them to pay the NPPR for, totally ignored of course, and were then faced with paying thousands I would have challenged it.


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> That is not proving what you are saying.  The Independent mentions a challenge, not a case won.



The Irish Independent links I provided refer to 2 separate cases. The IFJ link does indeed mention that the State is to challenge the result of one of these cases, as happened in the Tax Appeals case on the NPPR tax deduction.



Bronte said:


> This is not that the penalties infringe rights because they are harsh (your words earlier as grounds)



Of course unfair or unduly harsh penalties infringe rights. That is precisely why they can be judicially contested under common law.


----------



## Lone Star

I intend to be an example. and have no fear taking it through the courts and to Europe 
After what a particular bank put me through - I can do anything!


----------



## Sarenco

Apparently Revenue are appealing the High Court ruling...

http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2017/0222/854544-second-homes-charge-landlords/


----------



## Gordon Gekko

Sarenco said:


> Apparently Revenue are appealing the High Court ruling...
> 
> http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2017/0222/854544-second-homes-charge-landlords/



Wow.

More taxpayers' money!


----------



## T McGibney

Gordon Gekko said:


> Wow.
> 
> More taxpayers' money!



Michael Noonan's notorious inability in Ministerial office to control his public servants is now in its fourth decade.


----------



## Sarenco

From the RTE report -

In a Dáil reply to Mr McGrath, Minister for Finance Michael Noonan said Revenue would not be paying refunds while the High Court decision was under appeal.

Minister Noonan added the right to claim back money was subject to a "statutory limit of four years from the end of the chargeable period to which the claim relates".

Mr McGrath said:* "*It seems that the State's strategy is to wind down the clock so as to deny property owners the tax refund they are now legitimately due arising from the High Court decision".


----------



## torblednam

Sarenco said:


> From the RTE report -
> 
> In a Dáil reply to Mr McGrath, Minister for Finance Michael Noonan said Revenue would not be paying refunds while the High Court decision was under appeal.
> 
> Minister Noonan added the right to claim back money was subject to a "statutory limit of four years from the end of the chargeable period to which the claim relates".
> 
> Mr McGrath said:* "*It seems that the State's strategy is to wind down the clock so as to deny property owners the tax refund they are now legitimately due arising from the High Court decision".



I don't see how that can be said to be the strategy; the case is in the public domain and anyone who wishes to do so can make a claim now, just as they could all the way along - they just won't be paid it until the case is concluded.


----------



## T McGibney

torblednam said:


> I don't see how that can be said to be the strategy; the case is in the public domain and anyone who wishes to do so can make a claim now, just as they could all the way along - they just won't be paid it until the case is concluded.



The vast majority of people won't be motivated to make a retrospective claim for deduction until they know for certain that it will be honoured. Many people have a deep-seated fear of Revenue and won't want to make speculative claims.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

T McGibney said:


> The vast majority of people won't be motivated to make a retrospective claim for deduction until they know for certain that it will be honoured. Many people have a deep-seated fear of Revenue and won't want to make speculative claims.



Agreed.

People should never believe that Revenue are there to help them. This is an organisation that's primary function is to maximise the State's tax-take by whatever means possible, all with an unhealthy and sinister anti-wealth leaning.


----------



## torblednam

Gordon Gekko said:


> Agreed.
> 
> People should never believe that Revenue are there to help them. This is an organisation that's primary function is to maximise the State's tax-take *by whatever means possible, all with an unhealthy and sinister anti-wealth leaning*.



Really?! Do tell more...?


----------



## Sophrosyne

T McGibney said:


> The vast majority of people won't be motivated to make a retrospective claim for deduction until they know for certain that it will be honoured. Many people have a deep-seated fear of Revenue and won't want to make speculative claims.



???

People regularly make speculative claims.


----------



## T McGibney

Sophrosyne said:


> ???
> 
> People regularly make speculative claims.


That doesn't contradict my point that many people shy away from doing so.


----------



## T McGibney

torblednam said:


> Really?! Do tell more...?


Any basic comparison of how the Irish & UK tax systems treat business taxpayers really exposes the anti-business and anti-wealth ideology behind the Irish system.


----------



## cremeegg

As a practical matter how would a taxpayer go about claiming nppr as an expense for 2013 at this stage. In the hope that eventually Revenue will accept it.


----------



## DB74

cremeegg said:


> As a practical matter how would a taxpayer go about claiming nppr as an expense for 2013 at this stage. In the hope that eventually Revenue will accept it.



Just amend the figures on your Income Tax computation. Write to Revenue and say that you overstated the Rental Profit by €200 (or whatever) and wish to amend your return and ask them to issue an amended Notice of Assessment


----------



## SeanieG

Hi,

Forgive me if this had already been addressed in this thread, I have read right through it but can't seem to find an answer to my particular query. Just wondering if anyone can help me out with the following: 

1) If NPPR charges were paid late -i.e. in installments over the last four years 2013-2016 - are they deductible against rental income earned in the same years or can they only be deducted against rental income earned in the years they were due?

2) are the penalties tax deductible or just the charges?

Thanks in advance


----------



## torblednam

SeanieG said:


> Hi,
> 
> Forgive me if this had already been addressed in this thread, I have read right through it but can't seem to find an answer to my particular query. Just wondering if anyone can help me out with the following:
> 
> 1) If NPPR charges were paid late -i.e. in installments over the last four years 2013-2016 - are they deductible against rental income earned in the same years or can they only be deducted against rental income earned in the years they were due?
> 
> 2) are the penalties tax deductible or just the charges?
> 
> Thanks in advance



I'm going to answer your questions in reverse order because the answer to 2 makes the answer to 1 less important.

Penalties are not tax deductible generally, as they're not a cost incurred as part of a business but because of someone's individual mistake. 

The NPPR itself (if ultimately confirmed to be deductible), will be deductible against each referable year.


----------



## Bronte

torblednam said:


> Penalties are not tax deductible generally, as they're not a cost incurred as part of a business but because of someone's individual mistake.
> 
> The NPPR itself (if ultimately confirmed to be deductible), will be deductible against each referable year.



I find that response about the penalties not being deductible a big vague.  Because you used the word 'generally'.

Also right now legally the NPPR is deductible is it not?  It is current law is it not?

Finally can you claim back a deduction if it's more than four years.  Are you suggesting that if the appeal is won, that landlords will be able to back date claims beyond four years?


----------



## torblednam

Bronte said:


> I find that response about the penalties not being deductible a big vague.  Because you used the word 'generally'.



Well I used the word "generally" because deductibility is a question of law ("wholly and exclusively") and is subject to interpretation by the courts. A leading "recent" case is this one (I'm copying and pasting from a HMRC manual):

Lord Hoffman, in the case of McKnight v Sheppard [1999] 71TC419, noted that the Court of Appeal in the von Glehn case was:

‘curiously inarticulate about why the fine was not money expended for the purposes of the trade.’

He went on to note that, in his opinion, the reason related to the character of a fine or a penalty:

‘Its purpose is to punish the taxpayer and a court may easily conclude that the legislative policy would be diluted if the taxpayer were allowed to share the burden with the rest of the community by a deduction for the purposes of tax.’

However, this does not apply to damages that are compensatory, rather than punitive, in character. For example, damages for defamation payable by a newspaper company, where such claims are ‘a regular and almost unavoidable incident of publishing it’.

Where an employer pays fines that are the liability of an employee, so that the employee is taxable on the payment as employment income, the cost to the employer of paying the fines is allowable in computing his trading profits.


----------



## torblednam

Bronte said:


> Also right now legally the NPPR is deductible is it not?  It is current law is it not?



It isn't specifically written into statute as being deductible, so the only person whose tax assessment is subject to the decision is the taxpayer in question. Revenue have their own interpretation and the courts have, thus far, held a different interpretation.

Theoretically, even after an unfavourable Court of Appeal decision, Revenue could continue to hold their line and refuse to allow a deduction, and force every person who wants it to go to appeal in order to have their assessment determined by the appeal commissioners.

In practice obviously this wouldn't happen, and Revenue would have to accept to be bound by the ruling of the highest court in the State, and would have to change their application of the legislation at that point. But as long as they are continuing their appeal onwards they have to continue to apply their interpretation of the legislation, as otherwise they'd be making allowing amended assessments and repayments of tax that they do not agree are proper in law.


----------



## torblednam

Bronte said:


> Finally can you claim back a deduction if it's more than four years.  Are you suggesting that if the appeal is won, that landlords will be able to back date claims beyond four years?



No, you cannot claim a deduction back more than the statutory four year time limit. And no I'm not suggesting that.

The question I was answering was in relation to a person who had paid his NPPR years late and with substantial penalties. The answer to his question is that (for example) his 2011 NPPR will be deductible against his 2011 rental income - however it is now too late to claim any repayment that might result from such a deduction.


----------



## Bronte

torblednam said:


> It isn't specifically written into statute as being deductible, so the only person whose tax assessment is subject to the decision is the taxpayer in question. Revenue have their own interpretation and the courts have, thus far, held a different interpretation.
> 
> Theoretically, even after an unfavourable Court of Appeal decision, Revenue could continue to hold their line and refuse to allow a deduction, and force every person who wants it to go to appeal in order to have their assessment determined by the appeal commissioners.
> 
> In practice obviously this wouldn't happen, and Revenue would have to accept to be bound by the ruling of the highest court in the State, and would have to change their application of the legislation at that point. But as long as they are continuing their appeal onwards they have to continue to apply their interpretation of the legislation, as otherwise they'd be making allowing amended assessments and repayments of tax that they do not agree are proper in law.



Well it's heartening to hear that Revenue would abide by the Irish courts.

It's rather an odd statement to make to say that after a court decision Revenue could continue to refuse to allow the deduction and make everybody appeal.

Statute has nothing whatsoever to do with this.  Right now the law is that NPPR is deductable.  Is that not the case ? A court decision is the law, not statute.  Revenue's 'interpretation' now legally is wrong. 

Would you agree that right now a taxpayer can put in the deduction for 2013?  And revenue would have no grounds to refuse.


----------



## torblednam

Bronte said:


> It's rather an odd statement to make to say that after a court decision Revenue could continue to refuse to allow the deduction and make everybody appeal.


 It's a statement used to illustrate the point. In practice such a thing would never happen - Niall Cody would be hauled in front of the PAC faster than you could say Fall On Your Sword!!



Bronte said:


> Statute has nothing whatsoever to do with this.  Right now the law is that NPPR is deductable.  Is that not the case ? A court decision is the law, not statute.  Revenue's 'interpretation' now legally is wrong.


 Statute has everything to do with it. It's the function of the Revenue Commissioners to apply taxes legislation as set out in the Tax Acts. In so doing, they have to apply that legislation to the facts of each case, and this requires an amount of interpretation on their part. In the SPECIFIC CASE of the individual that was before the High Court, the judge had to consider the relevant statutory provisions (section 97 of the TCA) and apply it to the facts of that case. THAT case. Not necessarily every case. The High Court didn't rewrite the relevant section or subsection of legislation, that's not their function (the Oireachtas writes and amends legislation).



Bronte said:


> Would you agree that right now a taxpayer can put in the deduction for 2013?  And revenue would have no grounds to refuse.


 A taxpayer can do whatever they feel is correct (indeed, they can even do things they know aren't correct, it being a free country! ). Revenue of course have grounds to refuse their deduction, as it is their function to determine what is the correct tax assessment. As they are currently appealing the High Court decision onwards to the Court of Appeal (and wouldn't be doing so unless they believed their interpretation will yet be found to be correct), they cannot deliberately allow deductions / repayments that are inconsistent with their interpretation.


----------



## cremeegg

torblednam said:


> they cannot deliberately allow deductions / repayments that are inconsistent with their interpretation.



But their interpretation has been found to be incorrect by the courts, and unless and until Revenue's appeal is successful, that is the law.


----------



## torblednam

cremeegg said:


> But their interpretation has been found to be incorrect by the courts, and unless and until Revenue's appeal is successful, that is the law.



It is the law, as it has been found to apply to the subject of that case, one Thomas Collins.

If Revenue were to allow deductions and repayments every time they lost a case at the Appeal Commissioners, or even at the Circuit Court or High Court, there'd be big ructions every time they subsequently successfully overturned a decision... the papers and public commentary would be full of bile about the fact that Revenue had given people back money that they (Revenue) knew they'd be coming back to take off them again.

IMHO until such time as they exhaust the appeals process or decide to accept a particular decision, they are absolutely correct not to change their interpretation and their administration of taxes...


----------



## Nordkapp

This a mess, I normally do a return of income in March each year. Now I have to await the outcome of an appeal by Revenue on the NPPR. I like many other landlords paid that charge and the Household Charge but never sought to seek a reduction in income by submitting it as an expense. It is frankly a disgrace that Revenue cannot provide clarity on whether a landlord can claim for the NPPR, the Household Charge or the LPT. 
Why is the Tax Institute or the CAI not putting pressure on Revenue to park this and close off the ambiguity? 
If I were saucy I would seek to claim all those years I paid the NPPR, Household Charge and LPT and let them sort out the mess.


----------



## Sarenco

To be fair, there is no ambiguity in Revenue's position - they currently take the position that none of these charges are deductible.

You can certainly seek to argue otherwise if you take a different view.

FWIW, I don't expect Revenue to win their appeal re the deductibility of the NPPR - the Household Charge and LPT are a different matter.


----------



## JoeRoberts

Nordkapp said:


> If I were saucy I would seek to claim all those years I paid the NPPR, Household Charge and LPT and let them sort out the mess.


Presumably you could do this and note is as an expression of doubt in your return.
Revenue will likely ignore your claim and it will be up to you to make an appeal.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

Where is the accountability in terms of Revenue wasting taxpayers' money on a case that most people agree that they are destined to lose?


----------



## Nordkapp

Gordon Gekko said:


> Where is the accountability in terms of Revenue wasting taxpayers' money on a case that most people agree that they are destined to lose?


Absolutely scandalous, the legal profession in this country must be laughing at the Government, when you make a mistake admit it, pay it or refund it and move on. Next it will Irish water refunds or the VRT (think the VRT is next in line)


----------



## torblednam

Nordkapp said:


> Absolutely scandalous, the legal profession in this country must be laughing at the Government, when you make a mistake admit it, pay it or refund it and move on. Next it will Irish water refunds or the VRT (think the VRT is next in line)



There's a reason why there are different levels / tiers of courts in the judiciary you know - do you think there should be no right of appeal in relation to matters of civil law? 

Assuming you don't hold that view (which would be pretty dangerous and potentially liable to result in plenty of injustice), is it just the state that shouldn't be allowed access to the same recourse in the courts?

I'm trying to understand the rationale here after the ranting is done... help me out?!


----------



## torblednam

Gordon Gekko said:


> Where is the accountability in terms of Revenue wasting taxpayers' money on a case that most people agree that they are destined to lose?



They're directly accountable to the Minister for Finance, and to the Oireachtas via the PAC.

I'm surprised that so many people are taking so much umbrage with the separation of powers and the perfectly healthy operation of the different arms of the State in fulfilling their own individual functions independently of each other.

In terms of wasting taxpayers' money:


If Revenue accept the current position, the State will end up probably refunding at least a couple of million to claimants. (Anyone want to estimate how many will claim the extra €200 deduction, and what the average rate of tax across that group would be...?!)
The costs of the action to date are sunk costs in the context of a decision whether to proceed to the Court of Appeal.
If the cost of the further appeal are (say) €100k, and the legal advice of counsel is that there is even a modest prospect of success (say 30%) then the expected outcome has a positive value i.e. 30% X €2m of tax saved, minus €100k legal costs = €500k. (The €2m of tax loss if the appeal fails isn't relevant, as it crystallises immediately if an appeal isn't taken.
Unless the further legal costs would be very high or the expected loss to the exchequer was very low, it's hard to see how a responsible tax authority would justify NOT continuing with the appeal.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

torbleddnam,

Do you work with Revenue?

There is zero accountability in terms of waste. This case is ridiculous; a first year BComm student could figure out that Section 97 covers the NPPR charge. 

What will happen to the person driving this case when it's lost again? Will he/she be hauled over the coals as one would be in the private sector? Who will be accountable for the fortune wasted on professional fees?

The person or people within Revenue who are driving this nonsense should be fired, but given the culture of the place, they'll probably end up as Commissioners.

Gordon


----------



## Nordkapp

torblednam said:


> There's a reason why there are different levels / tiers of courts in the judiciary you know - do you think there should be no right of appeal in relation to matters of civil law?
> 
> Assuming you don't hold that view (which would be pretty dangerous and potentially liable to result in plenty of injustice), is it just the state that shouldn't be allowed access to the same recourse in the courts?
> 
> I'm trying to understand the rationale here after the ranting is done... help me out?!



The State is well advised by legal departments and external legal counsel prior to implementing legislation. However and for whatever reason they fail to test challenges to proposed implementing legislation thus leaving themselves open to challenge and further legal costs time and time again. 

Not making implementing legislation watertight or back testing challenges they march fortwright into more legal challenges and provide more work for the legal profession in this country.

Given I work for the State and see this time and time again it is about time things were made more transparent and water tight.
For instance, State failure to grasp the property charges in this country just in the last 10 years has seen us go from the NPPR charge to the Household Charge to LPT. When the Household charges were challenged by the Public (non payment) they had to revert to giving Revenue the legal power to collect the LPT.
In the UK, they implemented the Poll Tax (council tax) which covers water, waste and property and which has not changed in substance since implementation.

In summary, I don't think State bodies given the amount of money and time spent upfront to get legislation developed and implemented should have the right to appeal. It is a stalling money wasting tactic.


----------



## Setanta12

On the Revenue's website today;

"A recent decision of the High Court on the deductibility against rental profits of the Non Principal Private Residence charge (NPPR) has been appealed by Revenue to the Court of Appeal. Until that appeal is decided Revenue is not in a position to amend assessments or process repayment claims based on the High Court judgement.

While there is a general right to repayment of tax provided for in Section 865 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 where a person has paid an amount of tax which is not due, that right is subject to a limit of four years from the end of the chargeable period to which the claim relates. That four year limit is binding on Revenue.

As noted above, Revenue is not in a position to amend assessments or process repayment claims until the outcome of the Appeal case is known. However, any claims that are received within the statutory time limits, as they apply to each year of assessment, will be retained by Revenue; and processed when the outcome of the Appeal case is known. For example, if the decision of the Court of Appeal is made in 2018, any claim made in 2017 in respect of the year of assessment 2013 will be retained and processed in 2018.

If you have paid the NPPR charge for 2013 and wish to notify Revenue to deduct the payment from your previously declared rental income, an online notification facility will be available shortly on revenue.ie.

Once the outcome of this Appeal is known Revenue will process this claim and contact you, if appropriate.

*15 March 2017"*


----------



## Bronte

torblednam said:


> There's a reason why there are different levels / tiers of courts in the judiciary you know - do you think there should be no right of appeal in relation to matters of civil law?
> 
> Assuming you don't hold that view (which would be pretty dangerous and potentially liable to result in plenty of injustice), is it just the state that shouldn't be allowed access to the same recourse in the courts?
> 
> I'm trying to understand the rationale here after the ranting is done... help me out?!



It's unfair because ordinary tax payers do not have at their disposal the best lawyers the most expensive barristers, teams of in house legal staff.  Ordinary tax payers cannot afford appeal after appeal.  And Revenue along with other state bodies can use the fact of that power to browbeat citizens.  And with such power comes arrogance.  A senior civil servant deciding to go all the way to appeal just because they can and more importantly, just becaues they don't want to admit they got it wrong.

And Revenue come to this with unclean hands.  They never ever issued the briefing they promised.  And I'd like to see what legal advice they were given on this.  Pretty shaky I'd say.  But that doesn't matter, when you're not personally footing the bill, while having the resources of Revenue to take it all the way.


----------



## Bronte

torblednam said:


> They're directly accountable to the Minister for Finance, and to the Oireachtas via the PAC.
> 
> I'm surprised that so many people are taking so much umbrage with the separation of powers and the perfectly healthy operation of the different arms of the State in fulfilling their own individual functions independently of each other.
> 
> In terms of wasting taxpayers' money:
> 
> 
> If Revenue accept the current position, the State will end up probably refunding at least a couple of million to claimants. (Anyone want to estimate how many will claim the extra €200 deduction, and what the average rate of tax across that group would be...?!)
> The costs of the action to date are sunk costs in the context of a decision whether to proceed to the Court of Appeal.
> If the cost of the further appeal are (say) €100k, and the legal advice of counsel is that there is even a modest prospect of success (say 30%) then the expected outcome has a positive value i.e. 30% X €2m of tax saved, minus €100k legal costs = €500k. (The €2m of tax loss if the appeal fails isn't relevant, as it crystallises immediately if an appeal isn't taken.
> Unless the further legal costs would be very high or the expected loss to the exchequer was very low, it's hard to see how a responsible tax authority would justify NOT continuing with the appeal.



And there we have it, the reason for the appeal.  To make sure the four years it up totally.  Clever clever clever.


----------



## torblednam

Bronte said:


> And there we have it, the reason for the appeal.  To make sure the four years it up totally.  Clever clever clever.



Not sure what in my post leads you to reach that conclusion?!


----------



## Bronte

Setanta12 said:


> On the Revenue's website today;
> 
> "A recent decision of the High Court on the deductibility against rental profits of the Non Principal Private Residence charge (NPPR) has been appealed by Revenue to the Court of Appeal. Until that appeal is decided Revenue is not in a position to amend assessments or process repayment claims based on the High Court judgement.
> 
> While there is a general right to repayment of tax provided for in Section 865 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 where a person has paid an amount of tax which is not due, that right is subject to a limit of four years from the end of the chargeable period to which the claim relates. That four year limit is binding on Revenue.
> 
> As noted above, Revenue is not in a position to amend assessments or process repayment claims until the outcome of the Appeal case is known. However, any claims that are received within the statutory time limits, as they apply to each year of assessment, will be retained by Revenue; and processed when the outcome of the Appeal case is known. For example, if the decision of the Court of Appeal is made in 2018, any claim made in 2017 in respect of the year of assessment 2013 will be retained and processed in 2018.
> 
> If you have paid the NPPR charge for 2013 and wish to notify Revenue to deduct the payment from your previously declared rental income, an online notification facility will be available shortly on revenue.ie.
> 
> Once the outcome of this Appeal is known Revenue will process this claim and contact you, if appropriate.
> 
> *15 March 2017"*



Oh that's lovely wishy wash stuff from them. 

Watch this space guys:

If the appeal is won, they have it covered, too late for anyone to claim it back. 

If the appeal is lost, they have it covered, we made a mistake folks, but it's too late.


----------



## Ceist Beag

Bronte said:


> Oh that's lovely wishy wash stuff from them.
> 
> Watch this space guys:
> 
> If the appeal is won, they have it covered, too late for anyone to claim it back.
> 
> If the appeal is lost, they have it covered, we made a mistake folks, but it's too late.


How do you come to that conclusion Bronte? I thought it clearly showed how you can submit your claim this year in order not to miss the boat if the appeal is lost - in the below section. Did I misread that?



Setanta12 said:


> As noted above, Revenue is not in a position to amend assessments or process repayment claims until the outcome of the Appeal case is known. However, any claims that are received within the statutory time limits, as they apply to each year of assessment, will be retained by Revenue; and processed when the outcome of the Appeal case is known. For example, if the decision of the Court of Appeal is made in 2018, any claim made in 2017 in respect of the year of assessment 2013 will be retained and processed in 2018.
> 
> If you have paid the NPPR charge for 2013 and wish to notify Revenue to deduct the payment from your previously declared rental income, an online notification facility will be available shortly on revenue.ie.
> 
> Once the outcome of this Appeal is known Revenue will process this claim and contact you, if appropriate.


----------



## Bronte

Setanta12 said:


> On the Revenue's website today;
> 
> *15 March 2017"*



Forgot to say well spotted Setanta.  Like most landlords there is no way on earth I'd have known that, like 99% of other landlords.  They could have informed me though, via circular in snail mail.  They know my only income in Ireland is rental income.  They know normal tax payers do not read their website.  So much for public service.


----------



## torblednam

Bronte said:


> You make me laugh, how many landlords even look at revenue websites.
> 
> Never mind that, revenue abjectively failed when this tax came in to make sure all landlords even know about NPPR.  Especially those of us abroad like me.  It would have been ever so simple for revenue to have told us by circular, like the one I got a couple of weeks ago about the new appeals process.  Not a thing, nada.  And how many people got caught out paying thousands.



The NPPR was neither introduced by nor under the care and management of the Revenue Commissioners, so I'm not sure why you think it would be their responsibility to make landlords aware of it?

What about the NPPR-liable non-landlords, who simply own a second home or holiday home... should Revenue (or whomever else you want to hold responsible) have somehow known to tell them too?

The most practical way to do it would've been a flyer through every letterbox in the country, for the attention of the owner.


----------



## Sarenco

Bronte said:


> Never mind that, revenue abjectively failed when this tax came in to make sure all landlords even know about NPPR.



Why would Revenue notify anybody about a local authority rate?  The NPPR had nothing to do with Revenue.


----------



## rob oyle

An article of interest to some today... http://www.irishtimes.com/business/...ims-even-if-they-can-t-be-processed-1.3012885


----------



## Bronte

rob oyle said:


> An article of interest to some today... http://www.irishtimes.com/business/...ims-even-if-they-can-t-be-processed-1.3012885


If I didn't know better I'd swear someone was reading AAM ! 

And I note many of my points are there.


----------



## Bronte

torblednam said:


> The NPPR was neither introduced by nor under the care and management of the Revenue Commissioners, so I'm not sure why you think it would be their responsibility to make landlords aware of it?
> 
> What about the NPPR-liable non-landlords, who simply own a second home or holiday home... should Revenue (or whomever else you want to hold responsible) have somehow known to tell them too?
> 
> The most practical way to do it would've been a flyer through every letterbox in the country, for the attention of the owner.



While it is true that it wasn't under revenue control, the implications for it were unbelievable important for landlords.  Revenue at the very least could have done a tax briefing on it.  If landlords had known about it, then second home owners would no doubt have become aware of it. 

Also revenue promised a briefing and decided against doing that.  I'd like to know on what legal advice did they decide not to do the proper briefing. 

I agree with you about the flyer.  I await a flyer from Revenue on how to make a claim for 2013 !


----------



## Bronte

Sarenco said:


> Why would Revenue notify anybody about a local authority rate?  The NPPR had nothing to do with Revenue.




As I said, unbelievably important for landlords as tax payers.  It was a significant amount to deduct, particularly if like me, you have property subdivided.

BTW Sarenco, a bit of a slip there. Mandelbrot, any issue with Sarenco calling it a 'local authority rate'?

The guys in revenue are laughing at that !


----------



## Sarenco

Bronte said:


> As I said, unbelievably important for landlords as tax payers.  It was a significant amount to deduct, particularly if like me, you have property subdivided.



If the NPPR was a deductible local authority rate (as per the High Court) then it had nothing to do with Revenue.  Why would Revenue issue a briefing or flyer on a charge that had nothing to do with them?  You can't have it both ways Bronte.

I actually think the fact that Revenue are establishing an online facility to make claims for 2013 pending the outcome of the appeal is something that should be welcomed - not criticised.


----------



## Ceist Beag

Bronte said:


> I await a flyer from Revenue on how to make a claim for 2013 !


No need to wait Bronte, you now know what you need to do!


----------



## Bronte

Ceist Beag said:


> No need to wait Bronte, you now know what you need to do!



Common now Ceist Beag, I decided on the four year deadline for the first year to claim it.  So I've nothing to do. I got my tax deduction.  As far as I know most landlords did.


----------



## Bronte

Sarenco said:


> If the NPPR was a deductible local authority rate (as per the High Court) then it had nothing to do with Revenue.  Why would Revenue issue a briefing or flyer on a charge that had nothing to do with them?  You can't have it both ways Bronte.
> 
> I actually think the fact that Revenue are establishing an online facility to make claims for 2013 pending the outcome of the appeal is something that should be welcomed - not criticised.



Why should they get praise for doing what they are supposed to do?

In any case if they'd let us know their legal tax advice, I'd have more respect for them.  And I suspect the IT is bang on the button about their reasons for an appeal.


----------



## Sarenco

Bronte said:


> Why should they get praise for doing what they are supposed to do?


Revenue are setting up an online facility for the convenience of impacted taxpayers - they are not under any obligation to do so.


Bronte said:


> BTW Sarenco, a bit of a slip there. Mandelbrot, any issue with Sarenco calling it a 'local authority rate'?


No slip Bronte.  The High Court held that the NPPR was a rate payable to a local authority and hence deductible.  Do you disagree with that finding?  I don't.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Guys, you have probably debated this enough. 

I have not been following it. But discoveries and insights and advice after the first page of a thread will be missed by most people. 

Would someone volunteer to do a summary of the story in a new thread? 

What should landlords who have paid the NPPR do? 

Brendan


----------



## Sarenco

Brendan Burgess said:


> What should landlords who have paid the NPPR do?



If they didn't include NPPR as a deductible expense on their income tax returns, they should submit a tax refund claim now (or at least as soon as the online notification facility is in place).

It won't be processed by Revenue until the outcome of the Court of Appeal decision is known but it preserves rights that might otherwise become time-barred.


----------



## Mebs

Sarenco said:


> If they didn't include NPPR as a deductible expense on their income tax returns, they should submit a tax refund claim now (or at least as soon as the online notification facility is in place).
> 
> It won't be processed by Revenue until the outcome of the Court of Appeal decision is known but it preserves rights that might otherwise become time-barred.



When can the Court of Appeal ruling be expected to be delivered?


----------



## landlord

Just for information. In late Jan/early February I wrote in to FINGAL revenue using "my enquiries" on ROS giving details of this ruling and requesting a refund for 2013 on 5 properties. A refund was given to me within a week.


----------



## Nordkapp

By way of update, I submitted a claim for NPPR on a few properties for 2013. It was not challenged and I got a deduction in tax liability.


----------



## Ravima

_Just for information. In late Jan/early February I wrote in to FINGAL revenue using "my enquiries" on ROS giving details of this ruling and requesting a refund for 2013 on 5 properties. A refund was given to me within a week.
_
Do you mean you got a full refund?


----------



## Logo

I'm completing tax return for 2016 and including a deduction of NPPR payments that were previously disallowed. I assume that this is an allowable expense on ROS within the 4-year rule?


----------



## torblednam

Logo said:


> I'm completing tax return for 2016 and including a deduction of NPPR payments that were previously disallowed. I assume that this is an allowable expense on ROS within the 4-year rule?



I don't understand what this has to do with your 2016 return? 

You need to seek an amendment of the relevant prior year(s) returns.


----------

