Non Principal Private Residence Tax - Late Payment Extortion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bronte said:
Apart from this being morally questionable, is it in any way legally challengable I wonder. The fines are extortion.
Click to expand...

The first step would be to take a case to the Ombudsman, though I'd have thought it is very unlikely to succeed.
 
Nobody will ever win a case to the Ombudsman based on an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. However there is a reasonable case to be made in relation to the scale of the penalties being unduly onerous & unjust. Whether such a case would succeed remains to be seen.
 
I've already engaged with the ombudsman without success.

I've now sent freedom of information requests to the council and to the department, requesting information about:
- the campaigns to publicize the nppr.
- internal minutes/discussions etc re. treatment of verses residents viz. the nppr
- any deliberations re. exoneration
- any consideration of the systems implications of above.

I've had confirmations that the request has been received, but nothing else as yet.

I've also sent letters to all and sundry, with very little response, and a very aggressive pfo from Dublin city council.
 
What did the ombudsman say?

Not sure I understand part of what you've posted - verses?

What is PFO?

Fair play to you for taking this further.

In relation to exoneration, I seem to recall that there was a method, eventually, with the NPPR on how councy council's could help people on this, can't remember if I got a letter or it was mentioned on AAM or in the newspapers.
 
....let's just PFO is please go away, in a not so polite way!

Yes fair play to the poster. They will do well to get any meaningful engagement or even all the requested information. This info will be dripped as they see fit.
 
I don't see the Ombudsman ever being able to rule in favour of the taxpayer on grounds of insufficient publicity campaigns etc for the NPPR & its penalties, as the adequacy or otherwise of adverts etc is by its nature subjective. That said, I think there is scope for the Ombudsman to address and perhaps overrule the scale of penalties, as these are clearly extremely harsh relative to the actual NPPR charge, to the point that they may constitute a breach of natural justice.
 
Karloh said:
I've already engaged with the ombudsman without success.

I've now sent freedom of information requests to the council and to the department, requesting information about:
- the campaigns to publicize the nppr.
- internal minutes/discussions etc re. treatment of verses residents viz. the nppr
- any deliberations re. exoneration
- any consideration of the systems implications of above.

I've had confirmations that the request has been received, but nothing else as yet.

I've also sent letters to all and sundry, with very little response, and a very aggressive pfo from Dublin city council.
Click to expand...

You might like to broaden your search to include Dept Environment (who would have made the policy and legislation in this area) and LGMA who may well have had a role coordinating the local authorities dealings with Dept Environment.
 
I just got a response from the Freedom of Information office of the Department of the Environment Community and Local Government (ref previous post I had sent the freedom of information request to both DCC and the Dept.)

The letter was very constructive, and they are prepared to do the information research as requested. The sting is that they estimate the cost of processing the request will be €523 - 25 hours at €20.95/hour. I'm going ahead with it anyway, and I'm due to speak to them tomorrow to clarify the requirement.

Sorry for the lack of clarity on the previous posts, what I've asked for is:
- Details on the campaigns to publicize the nppr.
- Internal minutes/discussions etc re. treatment of overseas residents viz. the nppr
- any deliberations re. exoneration
- any consideration of the systems implications of above.

Incidentally, no reply from DCC to date. According to the rules no reply by October 4th should be taken as a rejection of the request. Will be pretty interesting/speak volumes if one arm of the state agrees to the request and one refuses.

Again, I'll keep you posted.
 
FYI, further back in this long thread, someone said that the Ombudsman has rejected the possibility of intervening regarding the excessiveness of the tax itself:

>> I got a reply from the Ombudsman, effectively saying they sympathized, but that the could only intervene with regards to the administration of the tax, and not on the rights/wrongs of the tax itself or the penalties, which were legislation and outside their remit. I then got on to the Dublin city manager, and got another PFO from them.

I suspect that this ruling of the Ombudsman is legally correct -- that they have no authority to question legislation. I'll be looking up their legislative charter to see if it is so.

It looks like the only option is to challenge this in the High Court on the basis of the excessiveness of the fines.

Anyone know about rights against excessive fines in Irish Law? Any case law? I couldn't find it in our constitution (in contrast with the American Constitution which has it), but it may be in our law as an inferred right or a matter of Equity.

I'm 95% sure its also in the European Convention of Human Rights, to which we are party.
 
amethyst said:
I suspect that this ruling of the Ombudsman is legally correct -- that they have no authority to question legislation. I'll be looking up their legislative charter to see if it is so.
Click to expand...
The Ombudsman did rule that the Mobility Allowance scheme was unsound, given that it discriminates against older people. I'm not sure if this was questioning legislation, or questioning a scheme.
 
That's interesting RainyDay.

I did look up the act setting up the Ombudsman.

“(2) Subject to this Act, the Ombudsman may investigate
any action taken by or on behalf of a reviewable
agency in the performance of administrative functions
where, having carried out a preliminary examination of the
matter, it appears to the Ombudsman—
(a) that the action has or may have adversely
affected an eligible person, and
(b) that the action was or may have been—
(i) taken without proper authority,
(ii) taken on irrelevant grounds,
(iii) the result of negligence or carelessness,
(iv) based on erroneous or incomplete
information,
(v) improperly discriminatory,
(vi) based on an undesirable administrative
practice,
(vii) a failure to comply with section 4A, or
(viii) otherwise contrary to fair or sound administration.

The Act does NOT seem to directly allow the Ombudsman to review legislation.

It would be interesting to see on what grounds the Ombudsman felt it appropriate to rule that he Mobility Allowance was unsound, even though it was being administered according to law. It would seem that they felt it within their remit to review the law in this case, if you are correct. It would seem to me that if they felt that they could comment on the unfairness of the Mobility Allowance (as prescribed by law) they should be able to do the same for the the excessiveness of the NPPR late penalties. Because, looking above, they may have noted that the Mobility Allowance was '(v) unfairly discriminatory' -- but we can similarly say that the NPPR late penalties are '(viii) otherwise contrary to fair or sound administration'.

Thanks a lot for that information RainyDay, I'll be looking into it.
 
amethyst said:
The Act does NOT seem to directly allow the Ombudsman to review legislation.

It would be interesting to see on what grounds the Ombudsman felt it appropriate to rule that he Mobility Allowance was unsound, even though it was being administered according to law. It would seem that they felt it within their remit to review the law in this case, if you are correct. It would seem to me that if they felt that they could comment on the unfairness of the Mobility Allowance (as prescribed by law) they should be able to do the same for the the excessiveness of the NPPR late penalties. Because, looking above, they may have noted that the Mobility Allowance was '(v) unfairly discriminatory' -- but we can similarly say that the NPPR late penalties are '(viii) otherwise contrary to fair or sound administration'.

Thanks a lot for that information RainyDay, I'll be looking into it.
Click to expand...

From what I know, it was the Ombudsman's view that the Mobility Allowance breached equality legislation, by restricting the benefit based on age.

Funnily enough, I disagree with your view on the NPPR, but I'm always happy to see due process applying, so best of luck with your efforts.
 
The Ombudsman Report 2009 addressed a case where a complainant received redress from a perceived unfair application by Revenue of Section 1041 of the Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997.

[broken link removed]
 
Thanks T McGibney. That seems to be a clear-cut case where the Ombudsman is complaining that the law itself is unfair.

>> Funnily enough, I disagree with your view on the NPPR

RainyDay, keep in mind that I don't disagree with the NPPR or the size of it, just the excessive penalties.

Do you think that the penalties are just not excessive in this case, or do you disagree that penalties can be excessive in principle?

The penalties are 120% of tax per year of lapse, UNCAPPED. Say you were unaware of your obligation and didn't pay for 4 years. Four years later you have, due to non-payment, almost 6 (5.8) times your original obligation. There is a figure of almost 6 here for 4 years of non-payment--Is this not too high? What figure would be too high to be fair in your view?
 
amethyst said:
>> Funnily enough, I disagree with your view on the NPPR

RainyDay, keep in mind that I don't disagree with the NPPR or the size of it, just the excessive penalties.

Do you think that the penalties are just not excessive in this case, or do you disagree that penalties can be excessive in principle?

The penalties are 120% of tax per year of lapse, UNCAPPED. Say you were unaware of your obligation and didn't pay for 4 years. Four years later you have, due to non-payment, almost 6 (5.8) times your original obligation. There is a figure of almost 6 here for 4 years of non-payment--Is this not too high? What figure would be too high to be fair in your view?
Click to expand...
My own view is that I don't see any credible reason why someone would be unaware of the fee, and a high penalty is justified to ensure high compliance.
 
Karloh said:
I just got a response from the Freedom of Information office of the Department of the Environment Community and Local Government (ref previous post I had sent the freedom of information request to both DCC and the Dept.)

The letter was very constructive, and they are prepared to do the information research as requested. The sting is that they estimate the cost of processing the request will be €523 - 25 hours at €20.95/hour. I'm going ahead with it anyway, and I'm due to speak to them tomorrow to clarify the requirement.

Sorry for the lack of clarity on the previous posts, what I've asked for is:
- Details on the campaigns to publicize the nppr.
- Internal minutes/discussions etc re. treatment of overseas residents viz. the nppr
- any deliberations re. exoneration
- any consideration of the systems implications of above.

Incidentally, no reply from DCC to date. According to the rules no reply by October 4th should be taken as a rejection of the request. Will be pretty interesting/speak volumes if one arm of the state agrees to the request and one refuses.

Again, I'll keep you posted.
Click to expand...

Remember that FOI relates to documents and emails - so deliberations, discussions and considerations if they weren't written down won't show up.
 
RainyDay said:
My own view is that I don't see any credible reason why someone would be unaware of the fee, and a high penalty is justified to ensure high compliance.
Click to expand...

It speaks volumes that the Local Property Tax achieved high compliance levels without any need for an effective 120% per annum interest rate on late payments.
 
RainyDay said:
>>> My own view is that I don't see any credible reason why someone would be unaware of the fee, and a high penalty is justified to ensure high compliance.

I'm hoping that the selection process for judges is such that those who get to be judges would be able to see credible reasons (even in advance before they are put before them) why people would be unaware of the fee.

Hopefully, such judges would also have a concept of Natural Justice.
 
It's easy to imagine folks living abroad might get caught by changes in legislation like this. Heck, you could owe a fortune if you fell into a coma for a few years. It is an extortionate rate of interest that a money lender would be embarrassed by. There's no good reason for this particular charge (tax by another name) to have such a punitive interest rate applied.

There should be penalties for non or late payment, but reasonable penalties please!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top