High Court Rules NPPR IS Tax-Deductible

Gordon Gekko said:
Where is the accountability in terms of Revenue wasting taxpayers' money on a case that most people agree that they are destined to lose?
Click to expand...
Absolutely scandalous, the legal profession in this country must be laughing at the Government, when you make a mistake admit it, pay it or refund it and move on. Next it will Irish water refunds or the VRT (think the VRT is next in line)
 
Nordkapp said:
Absolutely scandalous, the legal profession in this country must be laughing at the Government, when you make a mistake admit it, pay it or refund it and move on. Next it will Irish water refunds or the VRT (think the VRT is next in line)
Click to expand...

There's a reason why there are different levels / tiers of courts in the judiciary you know - do you think there should be no right of appeal in relation to matters of civil law?

Assuming you don't hold that view (which would be pretty dangerous and potentially liable to result in plenty of injustice), is it just the state that shouldn't be allowed access to the same recourse in the courts?

I'm trying to understand the rationale here after the ranting is done... help me out?!
 
Gordon Gekko said:
Where is the accountability in terms of Revenue wasting taxpayers' money on a case that most people agree that they are destined to lose?
Click to expand...

They're directly accountable to the Minister for Finance, and to the Oireachtas via the PAC.

I'm surprised that so many people are taking so much umbrage with the separation of powers and the perfectly healthy operation of the different arms of the State in fulfilling their own individual functions independently of each other.

In terms of wasting taxpayers' money:

  • If Revenue accept the current position, the State will end up probably refunding at least a couple of million to claimants. (Anyone want to estimate how many will claim the extra €200 deduction, and what the average rate of tax across that group would be...?!)
  • The costs of the action to date are sunk costs in the context of a decision whether to proceed to the Court of Appeal.
  • If the cost of the further appeal are (say) €100k, and the legal advice of counsel is that there is even a modest prospect of success (say 30%) then the expected outcome has a positive value i.e. 30% X €2m of tax saved, minus €100k legal costs = €500k. (The €2m of tax loss if the appeal fails isn't relevant, as it crystallises immediately if an appeal isn't taken.
  • Unless the further legal costs would be very high or the expected loss to the exchequer was very low, it's hard to see how a responsible tax authority would justify NOT continuing with the appeal.
 
torbleddnam,

Do you work with Revenue?

There is zero accountability in terms of waste. This case is ridiculous; a first year BComm student could figure out that Section 97 covers the NPPR charge.

What will happen to the person driving this case when it's lost again? Will he/she be hauled over the coals as one would be in the private sector? Who will be accountable for the fortune wasted on professional fees?

The person or people within Revenue who are driving this nonsense should be fired, but given the culture of the place, they'll probably end up as Commissioners.

Gordon
 

The State is well advised by legal departments and external legal counsel prior to implementing legislation. However and for whatever reason they fail to test challenges to proposed implementing legislation thus leaving themselves open to challenge and further legal costs time and time again.

Not making implementing legislation watertight or back testing challenges they march fortwright into more legal challenges and provide more work for the legal profession in this country.

Given I work for the State and see this time and time again it is about time things were made more transparent and water tight.
For instance, State failure to grasp the property charges in this country just in the last 10 years has seen us go from the NPPR charge to the Household Charge to LPT. When the Household charges were challenged by the Public (non payment) they had to revert to giving Revenue the legal power to collect the LPT.
In the UK, they implemented the Poll Tax (council tax) which covers water, waste and property and which has not changed in substance since implementation.

In summary, I don't think State bodies given the amount of money and time spent upfront to get legislation developed and implemented should have the right to appeal. It is a stalling money wasting tactic.
 
On the Revenue's website today;

"A recent decision of the High Court on the deductibility against rental profits of the Non Principal Private Residence charge (NPPR) has been appealed by Revenue to the Court of Appeal. Until that appeal is decided Revenue is not in a position to amend assessments or process repayment claims based on the High Court judgement.

While there is a general right to repayment of tax provided for in Section 865 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 where a person has paid an amount of tax which is not due, that right is subject to a limit of four years from the end of the chargeable period to which the claim relates. That four year limit is binding on Revenue.

As noted above, Revenue is not in a position to amend assessments or process repayment claims until the outcome of the Appeal case is known. However, any claims that are received within the statutory time limits, as they apply to each year of assessment, will be retained by Revenue; and processed when the outcome of the Appeal case is known. For example, if the decision of the Court of Appeal is made in 2018, any claim made in 2017 in respect of the year of assessment 2013 will be retained and processed in 2018.

If you have paid the NPPR charge for 2013 and wish to notify Revenue to deduct the payment from your previously declared rental income, an online notification facility will be available shortly on revenue.ie.

Once the outcome of this Appeal is known Revenue will process this claim and contact you, if appropriate.

15 March 2017"
 

It's unfair because ordinary tax payers do not have at their disposal the best lawyers the most expensive barristers, teams of in house legal staff. Ordinary tax payers cannot afford appeal after appeal. And Revenue along with other state bodies can use the fact of that power to browbeat citizens. And with such power comes arrogance. A senior civil servant deciding to go all the way to appeal just because they can and more importantly, just becaues they don't want to admit they got it wrong.

And Revenue come to this with unclean hands. They never ever issued the briefing they promised. And I'd like to see what legal advice they were given on this. Pretty shaky I'd say. But that doesn't matter, when you're not personally footing the bill, while having the resources of Revenue to take it all the way.
 

And there we have it, the reason for the appeal. To make sure the four years it up totally. Clever clever clever.
 

Oh that's lovely wishy wash stuff from them.

Watch this space guys:

If the appeal is won, they have it covered, too late for anyone to claim it back.

If the appeal is lost, they have it covered, we made a mistake folks, but it's too late.
 
Bronte said:
Oh that's lovely wishy wash stuff from them.

Watch this space guys:

If the appeal is won, they have it covered, too late for anyone to claim it back.

If the appeal is lost, they have it covered, we made a mistake folks, but it's too late.
Click to expand...
How do you come to that conclusion Bronte? I thought it clearly showed how you can submit your claim this year in order not to miss the boat if the appeal is lost - in the below section. Did I misread that?

 
Setanta12 said:
On the Revenue's website today;

15 March 2017"
Click to expand...

Forgot to say well spotted Setanta. Like most landlords there is no way on earth I'd have known that, like 99% of other landlords. They could have informed me though, via circular in snail mail. They know my only income in Ireland is rental income. They know normal tax payers do not read their website. So much for public service.
 

The NPPR was neither introduced by nor under the care and management of the Revenue Commissioners, so I'm not sure why you think it would be their responsibility to make landlords aware of it?

What about the NPPR-liable non-landlords, who simply own a second home or holiday home... should Revenue (or whomever else you want to hold responsible) have somehow known to tell them too?

The most practical way to do it would've been a flyer through every letterbox in the country, for the attention of the owner.
 
Bronte said:
Never mind that, revenue abjectively failed when this tax came in to make sure all landlords even know about NPPR.
Click to expand...

Why would Revenue notify anybody about a local authority rate? The NPPR had nothing to do with Revenue.
 

While it is true that it wasn't under revenue control, the implications for it were unbelievable important for landlords. Revenue at the very least could have done a tax briefing on it. If landlords had known about it, then second home owners would no doubt have become aware of it.

Also revenue promised a briefing and decided against doing that. I'd like to know on what legal advice did they decide not to do the proper briefing.

I agree with you about the flyer. I await a flyer from Revenue on how to make a claim for 2013 !
 
Sarenco said:
Why would Revenue notify anybody about a local authority rate? The NPPR had nothing to do with Revenue.
Click to expand...


As I said, unbelievably important for landlords as tax payers. It was a significant amount to deduct, particularly if like me, you have property subdivided.

BTW Sarenco, a bit of a slip there. Mandelbrot, any issue with Sarenco calling it a 'local authority rate'?

The guys in revenue are laughing at that !
 
Bronte said:
As I said, unbelievably important for landlords as tax payers. It was a significant amount to deduct, particularly if like me, you have property subdivided.
Click to expand...

If the NPPR was a deductible local authority rate (as per the High Court) then it had nothing to do with Revenue. Why would Revenue issue a briefing or flyer on a charge that had nothing to do with them? You can't have it both ways Bronte.

I actually think the fact that Revenue are establishing an online facility to make claims for 2013 pending the outcome of the appeal is something that should be welcomed - not criticised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register