# NPPR tax: Time divided between owned property & rented property. How PPR determined?



## Ursus (25 Jun 2011)

Hello

Regarding the NPPR tax, if you own a property and divide your time between that property and a rented property, are you expected to be able to PROVE that the owned property is your PPR?

What constitutes proof in this case?  Would a bank statement for example constitute proof or would it have to be something stronger like a utility bill or your PPS Number address?

Or does it depend on whose name is on the direct debit for the rented property?

Or indeed the division of occupancy TIME between both properties?


----------



## oldnick (25 Jun 2011)

the legislation states that you are exempt from NPPR if the property is your "_sole or_ _*MAIN* property_" (my bold letters).

- it should not therefore matter  that your name is also on the rented property. Lots of people rent a temporary or part-time place in Dublin and don't pay NPPR on their owned property outside the city.  

I'm assuming you're not renting out your owned property -that'll make it more difficult to convince anyone it's your main property.

Anyway, whose asking you to prove anything ?


----------



## Ursus (25 Jun 2011)

Thanks oldnick. I may be putting too much emphasis on actually being expected to live in one's main property and not a rented property, and at some stage down the road having to prove to Local Authority that it is and always has been one's principal residence. Far as I know the bill keeps rolling over every month for years...


----------



## oldnick (25 Jun 2011)

I've yet to see any sort of formula by which local authorities determine  what is your P.R. 

If some official in a few years determines that your own property is not your P.Res you could end up paying a few grand in cumulative fines. So your worries are well-founded. 

On the one hand you could pay the 200 p.a. and avoid the worry; most people would.
However, if your utility bills and perhaps other key mail(banks etc) are sent to your own property then you should be O.K. 
But if you rent out your own property,regardless as to whether it gets your mail then you're probably screwed. And if you are working full-time in ABC then it may be difficult to prove that your own property in XYZ is your main residence.


----------



## Ursus (26 Jun 2011)

No, the property that's registered in my name is not rented as such. My mother continues to reside there but I don't charge her rent or anything like that. However she insists on paying the ESB and her phone bills and these utility bills come addressed to her not me. Also, the house I myself am renting is well over 2 KM away, more like 24KM away!
I have old bank statements going back pre 2009, but no really major things like P60s or utility bills with the owned house address. The error I've made is assuming that this tax was only for people who are registered owners of two or more houses, which would exclude me. Going back to 2009 my bill + charges would now be €1300 I'm told!


----------



## oldnick (26 Jun 2011)

I've read and re-read the relevent legislation and confess I don't know the answer but i wonder if anyone does.

If you stick to the line that you use the rented place for a couple of nights a week -in case of the odd late night at work - then your owned property is your main residence. I see nothing contradicatory in your mum sharing the house and insisting she pays some utility bills, nor in private correspondence like bank statements going to your rented place  to avoid prying maternal eyes.

Therefore your owned home is still your PPR. But.....

..does this mean that the rented place , even if only used for a couple of days a week, is another residence on which you pay NPPR ? I  can't imagine it is - but if you are claiming rent against tax then this weakens your case.

In any event you must stick to the fact that  ,even if things are changing now, you hardly used the rented place and therefore owe nothing from the past. That's what you mean to say ,isn't it ?


----------



## Ursus (26 Jun 2011)

My argument would be that the owned property was and always has been my own PPR but was not suitable as a house for a  family, ie, too small, too isolated etc.

At end of day I suppose it may come down to the arguments put up by Local Authority as to why an owner should pay this tax and how those arguments are countered by the owner. But I do think you're  spot on when you say that if property is rented the owner's case is very weak.

Thanks again oldnick.


----------



## callybags (26 Jun 2011)

I think the best thing to do is ask the local authority for a ruling, and do your arguing now. 
This will guard against arrears accruing.

I did this for a different reason (uninhabitable property) and have an email from the council saying it is not liable. I offered for them to come out and inspect but they said it wasn't necessary.


----------



## mandelbrot (26 Jun 2011)

Ursus said:


> My argument would be that the owned property was and always has been my own PPR but was not suitable as a house for a  family, ie, too small, too isolated etc.
> 
> At end of day I suppose it may come down to the arguments put up by Local Authority as to why an owner should pay this tax and how those arguments are countered by the owner. But I do think you're  spot on when you say that if property is rented the owner's case is very weak.
> 
> Thanks again oldnick.



Sorry, just want to clarify something here. in your post above you refer to a family home, so are you saying you have a wife and/or children who reside at the rented house?

If so, then arguably that house would have to be regarded as the PPR, particularly considering that with the fact that your official correspondence goes to that address...


----------



## Ursus (27 Jun 2011)

callybags said:


> I think the best thing to do is ask the local authority for a ruling, and do your arguing now.
> This will guard against arrears accruing.
> 
> I did this for a different reason (uninhabitable property) and have an email from the council saying it is not liable. I offered for them to come out and inspect but they said it wasn't necessary.


 
Was thinking of doing the very thing. Clear up the confusion now. Will do that this week if possible and post how I got on.

Thanks to everyone for taking time to reply.


----------



## dereko1969 (27 Jun 2011)

The OP needs to pay the NPPR, the house is not their primary residence. Rather than attracting the fine for the sake of €200 s/he should pay the fee and then query it but from what I've read they don't have a case for saying it's their main residence.


----------



## oldnick (27 Jun 2011)

Ok on topic dereko -my question and I genuinely am baffled- is....


*What actually determines whether one has two properties ? *

If someone stays in a rented apt for 2/3 days a week  is he/she still considered to have two properties,one of which (whether the owned property or the rented one) incurs the NPPR charge ? 
 Is it the fact that ones pays for the rental full-time whether he/she uses it only occassionally? 
What about him renting weekdays in a city and returning to his rural home for weekends - does he/she have two residences ? 
If one is sent away for a six-month period from one's home to another place is there NPPR charge?

Obviously, I'm assuming that both properties are always available for the person's use i.e. not rented out.

I'm frankly not sure of any of this ,and I wonder if any council official is 100% certain.


----------



## dereko1969 (27 Jun 2011)

Yes but the question you're asking is not the one that the OP is asking, she has not stated that she lives or spends any real time at all in the house that's registered in her name. Her mother lives there and pays the bills etc the OP lives somewhere else so therefore is liable for the NPPR. 
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck etc.....

Your query should really be in another thread.


----------



## Bronte (27 Jun 2011)

oldnick said:


> Ok on topic dereko -my question and I genuinely am baffled- is....
> 
> 
> *What actually determines whether one has two properties ? *
> ...


 
What if you had 7 properties and spend one day a week in each.  Or indeed 365 properties and one day in each.


----------



## oldnick (27 Jun 2011)

As the answer to my question *is* germane to the OP's query I repeat, and perhaps clarify, my question....

*What determines (in the eyes of the law) whether a person has , for the purpose of NPPR charges , two or more residential properties ?*

If someone who fully understands the relevent legislation -which I confess I don't - perhaps they could explain whether
1) Is it the act of living in two seperate places that determines NPPR charges
2) or is it actually owning two residential properties.

I am veering towards the latter determination from my uneducated reading of the Act -the actual ownership/possession aspect is paramount. If I'm right then there is no NPPR charge for people renting away from their one and only owned property .


----------



## oldnick (27 Jun 2011)

Further to my query what actually determines NPPR  -is it ownership of two properties, or occupancy of one ,renting or otherwise, whilst owning another:- 

Am since advised by really knowledgable source that  my suspicion that ownership is a key factor  is incorrect. 

I withdraw question with apologies for trying to be a smarty-pants.


----------



## callybags (27 Jun 2011)

It's reasonably straightforward.

A person can only have one PPR at any given time.
The relevant date for 2011 is 31st March.

If it is established that a person owns(has a property registered in his/her name) that is not their PPR , then they are liable to the tax.

Therefore the only problem is to establish a person's PPR on 31st March, and take it from there.

If there is any doubt about a persons PPR, the people to establish the facts are the relevant local authority.

No amount of speculation here or elsewhere will change that.


----------



## Mrs Vimes (27 Jun 2011)

oldnick said:


> *What determines (in the eyes of the law) whether a person has , for the purpose of NPPR charges , two or more residential properties ?*
> 
> If someone who fully understands the relevent legislation -which I confess I don't - perhaps they could explain whether
> 1) Is it the act of living in two seperate places that determines NPPR charges
> 2) or is it actually owning two residential properties.




Hi Nick,

Having (whether owning or renting) 2 or more properties is not really relevant.

NPPR is payable by a person who owns a house that they don't live in.

They could live abroad or with parents or in a rented house, it makes no difference. They could be a person who bought at the peak and lost their job and moved back with parents - they are liable to NPPR on the place they bought and now don't live in.  Equally they could be a professional landlord with 50 properties who lives abroad - they are liable to 50 NPPRs.

In the case of a person who owns a house but lives in a different (rented) house closer to work, they are liable for the NPPR in the owned house. If time is split between the 2 houses equally then they could presumably choose which is PPR. If they are claiming rent relief or mortgage interest relief then that would clarify the situation.

Sybil


----------



## och aye (28 Jun 2011)

A couple own two properties each property is a summer trade bed & breakfast. 
Insurance, business etc requires that each B&B is occupied by one of the owners.
Neither house is subject to rates but water charges apply to both houses.
Is either of these properties required to pay NPPR ?


----------



## Ursus (16 Jul 2011)

Ursus said:


> Hello
> 
> Regarding the NPPR tax, if you own a property and divide your time between that property and a rented property, are you expected to be able to PROVE that the owned property is your PPR?
> 
> ...


 
Council reply to my query say I am not liable for the NPPR charge. So that's that sorted. Thanks to all for contributions.


----------



## oldnick (16 Jul 2011)

I'm assuming you are talking about your owned home. But did you ask about the place that you rent ?

I always assumed, as I stated in previous post, that ownership was the key factor in determining NPPR -and the council reponse seems to confirm that. 
But other posters, in this and other threads, stated that it made no difference whether a place was owned or rented - _one _of them must be your NPPR  and thus the charge had to be paid on that one ,owned or rented. (as in Sybil's or Callybag's posts  a few posts back).
So, I apologised for my "error".

But now the council says you are not liable for NPPR ? Not anywhere? That is, you can own one house and rent another and that's that - no NPPR ??

So confusing....


----------



## csirl (18 Jul 2011)

Your PPR is where you overnight most of nights of the tax year, regardless of whether you own it or not. e.g. if you usually spend 4 nights a week in property A and 3 nights a week in property B, then A is your PPR. 

NPPR tax is paid on a house you own, but is not your PPR. Using the example above, if you rented A and owned B, you are liable for NPPR tax on B.


----------



## oldnick (18 Jul 2011)

Yes, the general opinion  including that of the NPPR site  confirms that if you own or rent a proeprty that you don't stay in most of tiem then that is a NPPR (although the actual Act only specifies 31 March )

That's why I'm confused as to why the OP was told that he doesnt have to pay an NPPR charge -if,indeed, he was told that.


----------



## T McGibney (18 Jul 2011)

csirl said:


> Your PPR is where you overnight most of nights of the tax year, regardless of whether you own it or not. e.g. if you usually spend 4 nights a week in property A and 3 nights a week in property B, then A is your PPR.



Have you an authoritative source for this view? Although perhaps a useful guideline, I doubt if it is legally watertight. Otherwise perhaps a person who works nights could end up with their workplace as their PPR and a student might find that their college digs is their PPR, even though they would have no continuing right of occupation there.


----------



## csirl (18 Jul 2011)

T McGibney said:


> Have you an authoritative source for this view? Although perhaps a useful guideline, I doubt if it is legally watertight. Otherwise perhaps a person who works nights could end up with their workplace as their PPR and a student might find that their college digs is their PPR, even though they would have no continuing right of occupation there.


 
Revenue has definative rules for this. Obviously common sense applies to night shift people - its where they go home to sleep when they've finished work! PPR has nothing to do with continuing residency or property ownership - its all about where you spend most of your time. Yes, a student's or temporary workers PPR may well be temporary digs for the period of time that they are away from home depending on the number of nights etc. spent there during the tax year.

Your Principal Private Residency is what it says on the tin - the place that you live most of the time.


----------



## T McGibney (18 Jul 2011)

I would suggest that the Revenue guidelines, as least their [broken link removed] on the subject as published under FOI, are not at all clear, and appear questionable in a number of respects. For example, I would question their contention, in section 3.2 (ii) of the notes, that a hotel room could be one's PPR, unless of course they are perhaps talking about the Major in Fawlty Towers.

I highlighted a number of ambiguous situations in a blog post earlier this year and it seems that the more one delves into this subject, the more complicated it becomes.


----------



## Mrs Vimes (18 Jul 2011)

oldnick said:


> I'm assuming you are talking about your owned home. But did you ask about the place that you rent ?
> 
> I always assumed, as I stated in previous post, that ownership was the key factor in determining NPPR -and the council reponse seems to confirm that.
> But other posters, in this and other threads, stated that it made no difference whether a place was owned or rented - _one _of them must be your NPPR  and thus the charge had to be paid on that one ,owned or rented. (as in Sybil's or Callybag's posts  a few posts back).



Confusing is right - a tenant would never be liable for NPPR - it's levied on the owner only.

What I said was that if you owned a house and didn't live in it then you (as owner) are liable to NPPR regardless of what you do with the house or where else you live.

Sybil


----------



## dereko1969 (18 Jul 2011)

Ursus said:


> Council reply to my query say I am not liable for the NPPR charge. So that's that sorted. Thanks to all for contributions.


 
It would be useful for others if you stated what you wrote in your letter to the county council.


----------



## dereko1969 (18 Jul 2011)

T McGibney said:


> I would suggest that the Revenue guidelines, as least their [broken link removed] on the subject as published under FOI, are not at all clear, and appear questionable in a number of respects. For example, I would question their contention, in section 3.2 (ii) of the notes, that a hotel room could be one's PPR, unless of course they are perhaps talking about the Major in Fawlty Towers.
> 
> I highlighted a number of ambiguous situations in a blog post earlier this year and it seems that the more one delves into this subject, the more complicated it becomes.


 
You're quoting guidelines on Capital Gains Tax on the disposal of a PPR, the guidelines for the NPPR may well be different.


----------



## T McGibney (18 Jul 2011)

dereko1969 said:


> You're quoting guidelines on Capital Gains Tax on the disposal of a PPR, the guidelines for the NPPR may well be different.



Why? The concept has hardly changed in the last 2 years?


----------



## oldnick (18 Jul 2011)

Look -we all agree that it can be confusing. Most posters seem to think that one pays NPPR charge on a residential property in ireland that one owns or rents if that property is not the sole or main residence.  The nppr website suggests this is so.

But the Act - and it probably needs an expert to fully understand it  - says one must pay the charge if on the 31 March one owns a property if that property is not the sole or main residence.

It's the Act that counts, not general opinions,  - so ,if someone cleverer than me can translate it then we'd all have a clearer picture for those situations as per OP's .


----------



## callybags (18 Jul 2011)

It's very straightforward.

If you own a property in the state on 31st March, and this property is not your PPR, then you are liable for the tax on that property.

Where you are living or if you are renting is irrelevant.

The only opssible gray area is establishing your PPR on the 31st March.


----------



## dereko1969 (18 Jul 2011)

T McGibney said:


> Why? The concept has hardly changed in the last 2 years?


 
One is run by Revenue, the other by the County Councils.


----------



## csirl (18 Jul 2011)

> The only opssible gray area is establishing your PPR on the 31st March.


 
While people moving house is covered, and the liability of people who have being living in one place (whether they own/rent etc.) is also clear from the Act, there is one gray area.

The normal definition of PPR is in the Taxes Consolidation Acts and its where ever you spent the most days (183 or more) in the previous tax year. Take the following example.

Joe Bloggs owns a house. He moves out into rented accommodation in October 2010. On March 31st 2011, the house he moved out of is still officially his PPR as its where he spent the most time in the most recent tax year (2010). His house does not cease to become a PPR until at least mid way through 2011 i.e. after the March deadline. Is he liable for the payment in 2011?


----------



## Mrs Vimes (19 Jul 2011)

csirl said:


> The normal definition of PPR is in the Taxes Consolidation Acts and its where ever you spent the most days (183 or more) in the previous tax year. Take the following example.


 
This is the definition for residency in the country, not PPR



csirl said:


> Joe Bloggs owns a house. He moves out into rented accommodation in October 2010. On March 31st 2011, the house he moved out of is still officially his PPR as its where he spent the most time in the most recent tax year (2010). His house does not cease to become a PPR until at least mid way through 2011 i.e. after the March deadline. Is he liable for the payment in 2011?



The house ceases being his PPR in October 2010 and NPPR is due in March 2011 regardless of what he is doing with the house.


----------



## T McGibney (19 Jul 2011)

dereko1969 said:


> One is run by Revenue, the other by the County Councils.



The legal concept of 'principal private residence'' is well established, as are the principles that underlie it. The introduction of a new tax based on such principles does not affect them. It is not simply a matter of Revenue or the Dept of Finance rewriting the rules whenever it suits them.


----------



## oldnick (19 Jul 2011)

Is the 31st of March  a "deadline" or is it the actual date when someone has or has not more than one property for the npurpose of paying the NPPR charge ?

E.G. I own a house - but buy another house in April 2011 in which I live for eleven months before selling it in March 2012.  So, on 31 March 2012 I only have one house.
Hence no NPPR charge, regardless that I had two houses for 90% of the year and didnt live in one at all for those 11 months.

 I don't understand the "deadline" thing in previous posts- and  I can't find the section in the Act that talks about  what property is lived in for such-and-such a period.

------------------------------


----------



## Mrs Vimes (19 Jul 2011)

Whether you own a second house or not is immaterial.

*The NPPR is payable if, on 31 March, you own a house that you don't live in.
*
If you rented 7 different houses for an entire year because you had more money than sense and didn't like to sleep in the same house twice in a week but you didn't own any house then you pay NO NPPR.

If you own one house and don't live in it because it's a one bed flat in Donegal and you had triplets and your job moved to Cork then you DO pay NPPR.

Sorry to be getting into ridiculous scenarios but I don't understand the confusion.

Sybil


----------



## Ursus (19 Jul 2011)

oldnick said:


> Yes, the general opinion including that of the NPPR site confirms that if you own or rent a proeprty that you don't stay in most of tiem then that is a NPPR (although the actual Act only specifies 31 March )
> 
> That's why I'm confused as to why the OP was told that he doesnt have to pay an NPPR charge -if,indeed, he was told that.


 
I have the email to prove it.


----------



## oldnick (19 Jul 2011)

My confusion is why the Op who states he spends all the time in a rented accommodation and not the house he owns is not liable to NPPR on that property. 
That's why I'm looking at every angle. I agree entirely about the 31 March date.Not a deadline but a definite date.


----------



## Ursus (19 Jul 2011)

Might I suggest you go back and read the first sentence of my original post.....
"...divide my time..."

Might help with your confusion and be more useful than questioning my truthfulness. 
I've got my email, I'm told I'm not liable and that's good enough for me.


----------



## ajapale (19 Jul 2011)

NPPR tax: Time divided between owned property & rented property. How PPR determined?



callybags said:


> I think the best thing to do is ask the local authority for a ruling, and do your arguing now. This will guard against arrears accruing.





callybags said:


> A person can only have one PPR at any given time.
> The relevant date for 2011 is 31st March.
> 
> If it is established that a person owns (has a property registered in  his/her name) that is not their PPR, then they are liable to the tax.
> ...





Ursus said:


> I've got my email from the local authority. I'm told I'm not liable and that's good enough for me.



And on that happy note - thread closed! and thanks Callybags whose posts I have reproduced to summarise the thread.


----------

