# Are landlords really the root of all evil



## Frank (15 Oct 2015)

Tired of hearing how greedy landlords are causing all the homelessness.

In negative equity and paying massive taxes on what would be considered a loss making enterprise.

I know the place I ended up renting to allow me to move on will be be off the rental market once the equity comes back. The house has had good tenants on rental assistance that dropped several times over the years. 

Not that happy about being vilified because Chris O D didn't buy at the bottom of the market. Just happens the radio to whinge about his issue.


----------



## Bronte (16 Oct 2015)

Yes landlords are the root of all evil and I'm getting out one of these fine days.  I'm just now waiting for the accountant to confirm how much tax this year.  Great tenants, some on social welfare, no increase even though I'd get a lot more with the way rents have gone and it's constant villification as you point out.  As for that idiot Kelly, every second day a more hair brained idea on housing than the day before he comes out with as I listen in despair.

I have an empty garage conversion flat as it needs upgrading and I'd rather start again and build a lovely two bed top notch.  Not allowed due to planning of course, and they talk about density, this is a city.  Every second house is already a flat.  But the cost of building is prohibitive as it won't add value and the rent would be taxed so much it just doesn't make sense.  I'd do it in the morning but instead Kelly wants to give those lovely builders 30K for every house.

What programme was Chris on please so I can listen back ?


----------



## facetious (16 Oct 2015)

No, Landlords are not the root of all evil. Being a landlord is a business, not a charity. Landlords, whether they rent a single property or multiple ones, invest a lot of money in their asset and they, like any business, require a good return on their investment (or in the case of "unwilling" landlords) some extra income on a house they bought which is now in negative equity and they can't afford their mortgage.

You will never please all of the people all of the time. Just check out the rise in price for flights to Cardiff or the price of hotels in the same city this rugby quarter final weekend. I heard on the radio this morning, people paying nearly two thousand euros for the weekend. Are hotels and airlines also the root of all evil?

A government which imposes all sorts of taxes the public have to pay; are they the root of all evil?

Or how about a government which fails to comprehend the necessity for low cost housing for the low waged or unemployed; for those on social welfare, which has led to a large demand for accommodation in the private sector.

If accommodation can be found for refugees arriving in the country then surely there should be no homelessness at present. 

Many people want to live in a property which they can't afford. Many people want to live in an area they can't afford. Then there are people who want to live in a property and an are they can't afford. In my opinion, as was said, beggars can't be choosers. These are often the people cry the loudest about landlords being the root of all evil although it is the market forces that dictate and make renting so expensive.


----------



## odyssey06 (16 Oct 2015)

I'm neither a landlord nor a tenant, and I don't think they are the root of all evil... 

But what strikes me looking from the outside in is that there's too much risk involved for both sides.

Tenant has bad landlord... turns into a mess.
Landlord has bad tenant... turns into a mess.
You shouldn't have to rely on having a good tenant, or a good landlord. 

There isn't a free market in housing, yes there are market forces at work but it's within a heavily constrained system. I think those market forces right now are allowing some landlords to take advantage of the situation in an unfair way (and by unfair, I mean if in advance I didn't know whether I'd be a landlord or tenant, I would not want it to happen).


----------



## AlbacoreA (16 Oct 2015)

odyssey06 said:


> .... I think those market forces right now are allowing some landlords to take advantage of the situation in an unfair way ....



How is it unfair?  Is it fair to put controls on the profits LL can make but not the losses. 

The shortage of supply is due a mismanagement of housing, and particularly social housing by successive govts. The dysfunctional rental market is also a  mismanagement of it by govts. The problem won't be fixed by putting controls on the LL's. it will just make the problem worst. Because the LL aren't the root of the problem.


----------



## odyssey06 (16 Oct 2015)

AlbacoreA said:


> How is it unfair?  Is it fair to put controls on the profits LL can make but not the losses.
> 
> The shortage of supply is due a mismanagement of housing, and particularly social housing by successive govts. The dysfunctional rental market is also a  mismanagement of it by govts. The problem won't be fixed by putting controls on the LL's. it will just make the problem worst. Because the LL aren't the root of the problem.



In a dysfunctional market, it would not be unfair to put controls on the profits LL can make given that the supply is controlled\limited to a large extent by government and LLs are benefitting from the limitation. LL are not the root of the problem but some of their behaviour is a symptom of the problem and until the root cause is fixed, it would be justifiable to treat the symptom.

The prices that taxi drivers in Dublin can charge is limited (not their profits). Their losses are not. Why should landlords be different?

A separate question is whether putting controls in place would backfire and make things even more dysfunctional and I think it would be more effective to argue against rent control from that point of view. I don't think the unfairness argument will make much headway.


----------



## AlbacoreA (16 Oct 2015)

To use your Taxi analogy, they actually reduced the cost to the taxi drivers, to have a plate to increase supply. To do the same with housing they'd have to lower the costs to the LL. With the taxi's it ruined some of them. Many could no longer, make a living at it. But it did increase supply. However a LL has another option than take such a hit, in a rising market sell the house. So will rent controls increase the supply? Some will suggest that other LL will buy the properties that LL leave. But unlike taxi's the cost of entry isn't cheaper. Its more expensive, and less profitable. So maybe there will be fewer LL's controlling a bigger % of the stock and will be better able to dictate rents. Maybe it will reduce supply as some surveys suggest around 30% of LL would sell if the opportunity arose. So rent controls might control rents. But it make also reduce the supply even further. 

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-...rties-in-arrears-come-to-the-market-1.2099715

The problem is lack of supply. Won't be much help having a fixed rent, if there's no where to rent.


----------



## Gerard123 (16 Oct 2015)

Can see both sides.  No harm to have reasonable controls to prevent excess, agree with that as dysfunctional market not good for anyone, tenant or landlords.  At same time any controls need to be rooted in reality otherwise the market will get distorted.  Large number of good landlords under serious pressure.

Ridiculous loading up landlords with hidden taxes and charges (eg disallowing a quarter of interest, property taxes, PTB charges, etc) and when landlords seek to recover these they are portrayed unreasonably and Govt attempts made to prevent this.

Fact is Govt is at at the centre of many of the rental issues, introducing hidden charges for landlords thereby in effect forcing rents up. Be under no illusion that is the reality. Large part of mortgage payments are also the repayment of a portion of the loans taken to pay stamp duty and other taxes associated with building house.

Not the job of private landlords to subsidise tenant rents, reality is that a fact of life for many people and it's not sustainable. Social and affordable housing is a societal and Govt issue, not the responsibility of a small number of landlords.

Some more recent funds and buyers are no doubt seeking to maximise rents for short term profit and eventual exit.  That most certainly is not right.

Don't tar everyone withe the same brush though.  It's a more complex problem than simply greedy landlords!


----------



## AlbacoreA (16 Oct 2015)

Banks aren't helping either not passing on rate reductions, putting more pressure on the mortgage holders. When the banks do get the property, they sit on it, waiting for prices to rise.


----------



## Dermot (17 Oct 2015)

Kelly is playing a very dangerous game in interfering with the housing market for some political advantage for his party.  History has shown that Government interference in the rental market resolved nothing.
Well over 95% of Landlords and Tenants are very good and need no interference from Government.
The private rental sector is a vital part of every modern country and it also enables people to be flexible in availing of moving from one area to another for a whole host of reasons.
When the vulture funds that swept into the market and bought large swathes of apartment blocks at knock down prices start realising their tax free profits in 5 or 6 years time or maybe less I cannot see private landlords taking up the slack.
It is a over regulated market in a lot of ways with a bias against Landlords.  The PRTB process can literally put a private landlord out of business when a bad tenant is involved.
There are still a lot of landlords struggling with debt and rent freezes etc will only make matters worse.
I  have a number of tenants that have been with me  for a long time and I reduced rents for them when times were not good for either me or them. I raised them (not to full market price) when times started to improve. A year and a half ago I gave them a 2 year fixed price period at well under market price.  They have appreciated this but I am damned if I am going to use this current base into the future.
I continually invest in the properties and I do not see the basic minimum  standard as the bar that I set for myself.
I never heard a word out of Kelly or his like minded cronies about drafting legislation to prevent rents from falling some years ago.  I did email my local TD some months ago asking him to provide me with  a copy of such legislation just in case I had missed it.  Needless to say he never even replied and I will remind him that my vote will not be available this time when he calls and no cup of tea either.
Landlords are funding a inherently biased (against them) incompetent quango called the PRTB.  I do not know why I register with them.
If you have a tenant for more than 4 years the PRTB require that you give them another contribution?  Do not be a day late with this or any contribution to them or it will cost you double the fee.  I will not use their damned website so I recently asked them to send me a relatively small number of forms and I got a reply by email to print the attached form myself as they did not send out this number,
Government treat Landlords in the housing sector different to any other type of business by disallowing 25% of their interest as an expense.
The property tax is not allowed as a deduction either despite an indication from Noonan that he would look at this favourably at the time of introduction.
You have to renew your BER certification every 10 years.
As a Landlord you may have properties quite a distance from your own house and from one another and you cannot claim reasonable travel expenses for this???.
As a good Landlord you will be expected to remedy problems quite quickly even though they may well be the tenants fault.
A lot of Landlords because of the bad times got totally screwed with the NPPR tax with draconian penalties.  It would not happen to any other business sector. They will not be able to claim tax relief on these merciless penalties.  Did not suffer myself.
In reality Leases are a one way street and no desire to change that. Should not be like that.
Banks get in on the act of screwing landlords (what would you expect) with higher than normal mortgage rates regardless of your good record.
Insurance companies do not like to be left out in the cold either and charge higher Insurance premiums.
The Law society will not be caught wanting in creating business for their members.  Banks will insist on a BTL customer having to pay a fee which is pretty much given as a take it or leave it price to  the customer for a solicitor to check the title documents on the Banks behalf. This solicitor has to be on the Banks panel of solicitor. You could not make it up.
You have to pay your accountant (not the worst aspect but still a cost) and hope that you have everything sorted with Revenue in good time
It is getting too time consuming and technical.
Getting out of it when property prices recover a bit more as it is becoming too much hassle.
t may sound like a rant but I believe it is quite close to reality.


----------



## LS400 (17 Oct 2015)

Dermot, If the property market does increased price wise and you and like minded LL sell, as it's unlikely another investor will want to take on the increased property price mantle, due to the hoops you now have to go through to get a reasonable return, this situation is only going to get worse. Its for that reason, I can't understand why so many obstacles, pitfalls and red tape seem to confront the investor. It's not a win- win business, as so many will confirm, but it is a business. By the way, has their ever been a positive outcome from the PRTB where the LL has actually benefitted from the ruling. It's my understanding that even if they rule in your favour, months and months have gone by only for the tenants to just be able to walk away and leave misery in their wake? I could be wrong.


----------



## Dermot (17 Oct 2015)

LS400.  Your summation of my post and the general situation in relation to the PRTB is quite good.  I never whined when property prices were falling or for that matter when rental prices were falling.  That was market forces and I understood it as that.  I was not looking for Government to interfere in the market then and I do not want interference now or ever.  
Government interference generally leads to a dysfunctional rental market.  
In a few years time I hope to be out of it and none of my family have an interest in it.  In fact it is described as a "mugs game" in our house by other family members.
I do not know of any other business that has attracted as much negative interference from Governments and press as the Landlord business.
Its a service business pure and simple.


----------



## Bronte (19 Oct 2015)

Dermot what's the bit about a BTL panel of solicitor for buying.  Is that a new requirement?

Are you sure you cannot claim travel expenses for collecting rent?

LS400, PRTB are a waste of time for landlords as they won't enforce their useless 'determination orders' on tenants as they know cost wise it's a waste of time and no tenant is every going to pay up.

I''m deducting the LPT as an expense, it replaced the household charge and the NPPR and were to fund local authorities so I consider them rates.  Accountant poster Tommy stated some of his clients deduct it and some don't.

I'm totally legit except for the BER, never got one of those as it's a complete waste of time.


----------



## Sarenco (19 Oct 2015)

Revenue has issued very clear guidance to the effect that LPT is not a deductible expense as things stand.

BER certificates may well be a waste of time but failure to supply one is an offence.


----------



## T McGibney (19 Oct 2015)

That guidance is only guidance, it does not have legislative effect. The legislation provides that "expenses of management" of the property are allowable against rents. This is the basis on which eg buildings insurance is allowable. LPT is in my view within this bracket.

There is also a separate argument that LPT is a form of "rates levied by a public authority." The fact that local councils now enjoy the power to set the LPT rate for a particular area within a certain band, and also enjoy the proceeds thereof, strengthens the argument that LPT is allowable on this basis.


----------



## Sarenco (19 Oct 2015)

T McGibney said:


> That guidance is only guidance, it does not have legislative effect. The legislation provides that "expenses of management" of the property are allowable against rents. This is the basis on which eg buildings insurance is allowable. LPT is in my view within this bracket.
> 
> There is also a separate argument that LPT is a form of "rates levied by a public authority." The fact that local councils now enjoy the power to set the LPT rate for a particular area within a certain band strengthens the argument that LPT is allowable on this basis.



Understood.  

I was simply pointing out that Revenue's interpretation is now crystal clear.  A taxpayer can certainly challenge this interpretation in the High Court but if they lose (which is entirely possible) this could prove to be a very expensive exercise.

For what it's worth, I strongly disagree with your opinion that LPT (or any tax) is a management expense or that LPT is the same thing as rates levied by a public authority.


----------



## T McGibney (19 Oct 2015)

Come on, no need to be dramatic, you clearly don't have to go to the High Court to challenge a piece of Revenue guidance that isn't enshrined in legislation.

Otherwise, you're entitled to your opinion. As I am to mine.


----------



## Sarenco (19 Oct 2015)

Well who else can make the final determination?  I'm not saying a taxpayer would have to initiate proceedings to seek a declaratory order.

We are certainly both entitled to our opinions but I would be very surprised if the High Court interpreted the legislation in line with your views.

At the end of the day, should an individual take the risk that Revenue's interpretation in this regard is wrong?  Is it worth the risk given the potential downside?


----------



## Bronte (19 Oct 2015)

Sarenco said:


> Revenue has issued very clear guidance to the effect that LPT is not a deductible expense as things stand.
> 
> BER certificates may well be a waste of time but failure to supply one is an offence.



Revenue guidence is not law and it can sometimes be incorrect.  I'm prepared for an audit and will go all the way to the appeal commissioners if necessary.  To that end I've kept all newspapers clipings etc on how the LPT and the NPPR came about. 

Don't care about the BER certs being an offence, total waste and it's only a money generating exercise of, I don't think any tenant every asked me for it in any case. 

And I should have added that I refuse to talk anymore to Irish water as they are impossible to deal with.  But when I've the energy I might change my mind.


----------



## Bronte (19 Oct 2015)

Sarenco said:


> I was simply pointing out that Revenue's interpretation is now crystal clear.  A taxpayer can certainly challenge this interpretation in the High Court but if they lose (which is entirely possible) this could prove to be a very expensive exercise.
> 
> For what it's worth, I strongly disagree with your opinion that LPT (or any tax) is a management expense or that LPT is the same thing as rates levied by a public authority.



Did you know that for many years revenue's interpretation of life insurance (term insurance) was crystal clear.  Until they changed their minds.  About 10 years ago (Tommy?)

And there is an appeals procedure with revenue that doesn't entail the High court.

See my many posts on NPPR for a full debate on interpretations of Rates.


----------



## Bronte (19 Oct 2015)

T McGibney said:


> There is also a separate argument that LPT is a form of "rates levied by a public authority." The fact that local councils now enjoy the power to set the LPT rate for a particular area within a certain band, and also enjoy the proceeds thereof, strengthens the argument that LPT is allowable on this basis.



That's very good Tommy, another to add to my justification.  See sometimes AAM is worth it just for gems like this.

(as it's the time of year and tax returns were on my mind, I was looking back to see this LPT thing, and my goodness all the different dates is a minefield.  Very confusing)


----------



## T McGibney (19 Oct 2015)

Sarenco said:


> Well who else can make the final determination?  I'm not saying a taxpayer would have to initiate proceedings to seek a declaratory order.
> 
> We are certainly both entitled to our opinions but I would be very surprised if the High Court interpreted the legislation in line with your views.
> 
> At the end of the day, should an individual take the risk that Revenue's interpretation in this regard is wrong?  Is it worth the risk given the potential downside?



It's rare that a disagreement over the interpretation of a tax issue goes all the way to the High Court. Most are settled informally, a tiny minority to go to the Appeal Commissioners, a few will go further to the Circuit Court and so on.

Which downside do you mean - the risk of underpaying or the risk of overpaying?


----------



## Sarenco (19 Oct 2015)

There is no realistic chance, in my opinion, that Revenue would agree to a different interpretation on an informal basis when they have taken such a public position on this issue.  Similarly, the Revenue would be highly likely to appeal any decision of the Appeals Commisioners or Circuit Court that arrived at a different interpretation.

The downside risks would be the costs of unsuccessfully arguing this case and the potential interest and penalties associated with having been determined to have under paid any income tax due.


----------



## T McGibney (19 Oct 2015)

Sarenco said:


> There is no realistic chance, in my opinion, that Revenue would agree to a different interpretation on an informal basis when they have taken such a public position on this issue.  Similarly, the Revenue would be highly likely to appeal any decision of the Appeals Commisioners or Circuit Court that arrived at a different interpretation.



No realistic chance? So you're saying Revenue would definitely force a resort to appeal in all such situations, and would definitely appeal to the courts, every case it loses at Appeal? I respectfully disagree on both counts.



Sarenco said:


> The downside risks would be the costs of unsuccessfully arguing this case and the potential interest and penalties associated with having been determined to have under paid any income tax due.



The additional cost of arguing a case is hardly likely to be outrageous. The key arguments could literally fit on the back of an envelope.

I'm not at all sure that penalties would be an issue in a case of genuine technical disagreement. Are you?

And interest is hardly going to amount to much of a hill of beans in any normal case of this kind.


----------



## Sarenco (19 Oct 2015)

No, I'm not saying Revenue would definitely do anything. 

What I am saying is that, in my opinion, there is no realistic chance that Revenue would informally accept an interpretation that is contrary to their public position and it is highly likely, again in my opinion, that Revenue would exercise any avenue of appeal available to it, up to and including the High Court, in the (unlikely) event that a decision on this point goes against it.

The additional costs of unsuccessfully arguing this case may not be outrageous but they would certainly be material and would vastly out way any possible benefit from claiming LPT as a deduction.

I'm not so sure that you could argue that this is a case of genuine technical disagreement.  Revenue's position is absolutely clear on this point.  You may disagree with their position but there is no ambiguity on where they stand (which I happen to agree conforms with the legislation).

I certainly take the point that any interest is unlikely to amount to a significant figure.


----------



## T McGibney (19 Oct 2015)

Sarenco said:


> What I am saying is that, in my opinion, there is no realistic chance that Revenue would informally accept an interpretation that is contrary to their public position and it is highly likely, again in my opinion, that Revenue would exercise any avenue of appeal available to it, up to and including the High Court, in the (unlikely) event that a decision on this point goes against it.



That's merely a repetition of what you said earlier. It puzzles me and I'm interested in finding what, if any, basis you have for it. It's very rarely that we see Revenue going all the way to the High Court on run-of-the-mill technical disagreement issues that they lose at appeal - and they do lose some big ones, the case that effectively outlawed grossing up of disallowed directors' travel expenses is a pertinent example.

So why do you think they would abandon this reticence now and go all the way incurring huge expense on an issue that's not even covered by legislation?



Sarenco said:


> t.
> 
> The additional costs of unsuccessfully arguing this case may not be outrageous but they would certainly be material and would vastly out way any possible benefit from claiming LPT as a deduction.



Material? How? Most of the grounds one would cite are included in this discussion. How much does a letter cost?



Sarenco said:


> I'm not so sure that you could argue that this is a case of genuine technical disagreement.  Revenue's position is absolutely clear on this point.  You may disagree with their position but there is no ambiguity on where they stand (which I happen to agree conforms with the legislation).



So you're saying that Revenue pronouncements in eBriefs etc now have the same status as legislation? It's always worth remembering that Revenue don't make the law, they implement it, and they are never judge, jury and executioner.


----------



## Sarenco (19 Oct 2015)

Yes, I repeated my opinions as expressed in an earlier post because you asked if I was saying something else.

I am of the opinion that Revenue would exercise every avenue of appeal available to it, up to and including the High Court, in the unlikely event that a decision goes against them on this point primarily because:- (a) they would be very confident of winning; and (b) the aggregate loss to the exchequer if their interpretation was found to be incorrect would be significant. 

Revenue would point out that the scope of what is deductible for income tax purposes is already specified in the legislation.  The fact that you have a different (and in my view incorrect) interpretation of that legislation is a different issue. 

In response to a parliamentary question on 5 October 2014, the Minister for Finance stated that the reference to local authority rates in section 97(2) of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 is, following the removal of rates on domestic property in the late 1970's, a reference only to rates on commercial property payable to local authorities in accordance with the relevant local government legislation. Notwithstanding that local authorities can, with effect from 2015, vary the rate of LPT in accordance with section 20 of the LPT legislation, LPT is not a rate levied by a local authority and is, therefore, not deductible from gross rents under section 97(2). 

The Minister went on to state that the Government has agreed in principle to accept the recommendation of the Thornhill Report that the local property tax should be a deductible expense in calculating a landlord's taxable rental income.  However, as you know, the Government has yet to implement this recommendation.

The time and costs involved with any court process are always material - it is a lot more involved than simply writing a letter.

No, I am not saying that Revenue pronouncements have the same status as legislation. Revenue certainly do not make the law and cannot conclusively interpret the law - I have never suggested otherwise.


----------



## T McGibney (19 Oct 2015)

Court process? All very dramatic. That's not how tax administration works generally.


----------



## Sarenco (19 Oct 2015)

What's dramatic about it?  You are proposing to challenge Revenue's (very public and entirely plausible) interpretation of a piece of legislation that would have a significant knock-on effect for a large number of taxpayers - how do you expect them to react? 

This is hardly a simple matter of tax administration.


----------



## T McGibney (19 Oct 2015)

This is boring. I've worked for almost all of the last 27 years in tax and haven't seen the inside of a courtroom yet. That's all I have to say.


----------



## Sarenco (19 Oct 2015)

Charming.

I simply expressed my opinion as to how I thought Revenue would be likely to react to a challenge to their interpretation of the legislation on this point and how the Court would be likely to interpret the legislation.  You don't have to agree with me but there's really no need to be rude about it.


----------



## T McGibney (19 Oct 2015)

I haven't been rude. This has just got boring. I'm saying no more.


----------



## Sarenco (19 Oct 2015)

Well, declaring that you don't want to participate in a conversation any more because you find it boring is rude in my book.  You may, of course, take a different view.


----------



## Sarenco (19 Oct 2015)

Sorry Bronte I missed your earlier post.

There's no doubt that Revenue can change their interpretation of the law over time - I just wouldn't expect them to do so on this point.

Yes, I am obviously aware that there are avenues of appeal from Revenue decisions that do not involve going directly to the High Court.

Maybe you're right and the Appeals Commissioners will agree with your interpretation and the Revenue would leave it at that.  I just don't think that's very likely.

Yes, I recall the previous discussion as to whether the NPPR constituted rates.  I didn't agree that it did but there was certainly some uncertainty around the Revenue's position on the point.  There is no similar uncertainty regarding Revenue's position regarding the LPT.

It also doesn't help your argument that the Minister for Finance has advised the Dail that LPT is not a deductible expense and no legislation has been passed to change this position.  In these circumstances, it is very difficult to maintain an argument that the Oireachtas ever intended LPT to be a deductible expense.

Ultimately, I take the approach that discretion is the better part of valour in all my dealings with Revenue.  You are obviously free to take a different approach.


----------



## Dermot (19 Oct 2015)

Bronte said:


> Dermot what's the bit about a BTL panel of solicitor for buying. Is that a new requirement?


When purchasing a property as an investor you will as normal hire your own solicitor but if you are drawing down a mortgage the Bank will insist that you pay them a fee (not by any means cut price) to employ a solicitor drawn from their own panel of solicitors (investor though paying not given much choice).
If you were buying the same house with the same amount of a mortgage and  you using the same solicitor but going to use it as your PPR the bank will not require you to pay for a second solicitor. Bizarre?. 
It is a requirement for the past 4 or 5 years at least.
I understand that it is a Law Society diktat because of Insurance issues and the Banks are quite happy to let it run and effectively enforcing it.
From my point of view it seems that the Law Society does not have enough confidence in enough of their members to do their job correctly without incurring big claims.
It normally does not take two qualified carpenters in the real world to hang a standard door.


----------



## Bronte (20 Oct 2015)

That's very odd Dermot, havenn't heard of that at all.  As it happens it was the way it used to be many moons ago.  There were 3 solicitors if I remember for our first home.  Ours, the vendors and the one for the bank. 

I think it was reduced due to costs and I imagine the step backwards is because of the abuse by some solicitors of the *undertakings* not being reliable.  (Undertaking to make sure the legals are ok and that the mortgage is properly attached to the property)

Can you get around it I wonder by just hiring a panal solicitor as your solicitor. 

I'm not understanding  the insurance issues?


----------



## Bronte (20 Oct 2015)

Sarenco said:


> .
> There's no doubt that Revenue can change their interpretation of the law over time - I just wouldn't expect them to do so on this point.
> 
> Maybe you're right and the Appeals Commissioners will agree with your interpretation and the Revenue would leave it at that.  I just don't think that's very likely.
> ...



I think it highly unlikely revenue would even let it go to the Appeals Commissioner, they are practical people and they might just capitulate with one thick landlord, ie me Bronte, as I'm willing to go all the way.  Noonan can state whatever he likes in the Dail, doesn't mean he's right legally.  Anyway thanks to accountant Tommy McGibney I have another argument in my favour (the fact LPT can be reduced by each local authority and is to be used in the local area ie rates and rates have always been allowable)


----------



## Sarenco (20 Oct 2015)

Fair enough - I can see you're not for turning!


----------



## T McGibney (20 Oct 2015)

Sarenco said:


> Well, declaring that you don't want to participate in a conversation any more because you find it boring is rude in my book.  You may, of course, take a different view.



Perhaps it is, but still not half as rude as hectoring someone to continue in a conversation against their wishes.


----------



## Sarenco (20 Oct 2015)

I'm not hectoring anybody!  If you don't want to continue a discussion that's obviously fine.


----------



## cremeegg (20 Oct 2015)

Dermot said:


> From my point of view it seems that the Law Society does not have enough confidence in enough of their members to do their job correctly without incurring big claims.
> 
> It normally does not take two qualified carpenters in the real world to hang a standard door.



Excellent point.

The public is paying for Lynn and Byrne.

Lawyers not landlords are the root of all evil.


----------



## T McGibney (20 Oct 2015)

Sarenco said:


> I'm not hectoring anybody!  If you don't want to continue a discussion that's obviously fine.


Well thanks for eventually conceding that.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Oct 2015)

That's all folks...


----------

