.... 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.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?