Key Post Anyone who buys a home in 2013 is exempt from LPT until 2017, not just First Time Bs

Brendan Burgess said:
I don't think that the Revenue official was correct to say this to Gianni.
Click to expand...

The official spoke at length to me answering lots of questions that I didn't ask. They seemed flustered when I was pushing them on specifics. It's very possible that some of the information they gave was inaccurate/incomplete.

The information I received was over the course of 3 phone calls within the space of about 4 hours. I made the first call and they called me back twice.
 
Thanks Dermot, I will ring Revenue on Monday. We moved into house after 1st of May which hopefully means we should be exempt.
 

So was it you Brendan who uncovered this error in the legislation?
 
AgathaC said:
So was it you Brendan who uncovered this error in the legislation?
Click to expand...

Not exactly.

Revenue discovered the error themselves, but told nobody at the time.

When they told me on Wednesday last that first time buyers meant all buyers, I discovered that they hadn't told anyone else.

So I gave the story to Charlie Weston.

Brendan
 
Well done! I saw you on the news last night, so I was wondering.
It is great news for anyone who bought this year. Another bit of a mess for Revenue who, in my opinion, were giving a message, that because it was in their hands, this LPT thing would be a breeze to implement.
 
Nice mention by Charlie, in the Indo, of the role Brendan played in this ...

Askaboutmoney's Brendan Burgess,who spotted the mistake, has advised those effected to contact the Revenue and claim a refund if they have paid, and make sure they get an exemption up to 2016.
Click to expand...

Well done Brendan.
 
I would like to add my thanks too.

As a (not first time) buyer in 2013, uncovering the lpt exemption has directly saved me quite a few, and indirectly, askaboutmoney and it's users have taught me so much over the years. Really helped me out few times. Kudos.
 

So, were Revenue effectively hoping nobody would notice and they could get away with it?
 
bazermc said:
So, were Revenue effectively hoping nobody would notice and they could get away with it?
Click to expand...

Hi bazer

No, the Revenue were not hoping to get away with it. They had noted it in their Manual, which is published online.

Gianni reports that he was told it by three separate employees, so it was widely known within the Revenue.

My guess is that they treated it as a low priority and just didn't get around to dealing with it. To give them their due, they have introduced a new tax and have been very successful in collecting it. But they should have gone public on it much earlier.
 
Hi "Shamrock". Did you get through to Revenue?. What advice did they give you? Who has to refund the LPT paid through Solicitor to Vendor. Thank You
 
Brendan Burgess said:
No, the Revenue were not hoping to get away with it. They had noted it in their Manual, which is published online.

But they should have gone public on it much earlier.
Click to expand...

Not much point publishing it in their manual when it's mostly accountants that read that. Not owners, potential owners, solicitors or auctioneers. These are the people who should have been contacted, immediately. What is the difficulty in revenue writing to the Law Society, the Auctioneering body and the business section of the main newspapers and highlighting this so that people do not now have to go back and get refunds etc.

They could also have written to you at AAM as we know they read this website and there have been endless debates on LPT.
 
@ redwoodpark - I rang Revenue and was told I wouldn't qualify intially and I asked guy to check with someone else and he came back saying I would be exempt after I told him about FAQ kindly pointed out by Dermot. I had to email lpt@revenue.ie so awaiting a reply and will update you with outcome. I'm sure that they will respond loooking for supporting documentation.
 
Bronte said:
What is the difficulty in revenue writing to the Law Society, the Auctioneering body and the business section of the main newspapers and highlighting this so that people do not now have to go back and get refunds etc.

.
Click to expand...

Fully agree. If the Law Society had been informed, solicitors acting for the buyers could have advised their clients that they were exempt.

The Revenue did not even amend their website, which would have been very easy to do.

I don't think that there is anything underhand here. Just a slip-up and failure to recognise the importance of the issue in a very busy environment.

Brendan
 
Thanks "Shamrock". You were lucky to get through to Revenue. Please keep me informed if you get a reply.
 
Bronte said:
They could also have written to you at AAM as we know they read this website and there have been endless debates on LPT.
Click to expand...

Good old "they"! Yep I'd say there's some pen pusher in Dublin castle whose sole purpose in life is to keep tabs on goings on on AAM...!
 
mandelbrot said:
Good old "they"! Yep I'd say there's some pen pusher in Dublin castle whose sole purpose in life is to keep tabs on goings on on AAM...!
Click to expand...

+1
And to be fair to the Revenue, I don't think its their job to publicise loopholes ...
 
Mrs Vimes said:
Is this an admission?

What else do they "keep tabs on"?
Click to expand...

Hopefully lots of posts !! I would hope that the Justice Department and Dept of Finance and Central Bank keep a mindful eye and keep a track on consumer issues and in turn would note some of the outrageous happenings by Financial Providers that have continually abused their positions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register