High Court Rules NPPR IS Tax-Deductible

Bronte said:
Why could you not be public about it?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
As if that meant anything.

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

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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."
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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”.
 
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. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top