Non Principal Private Residence Tax - Late Payment Extortion

[murphaph]

This is a tax on non-residences. If you have the resources to have/own/keep a 2nd property, then you have the resources to pay the tax on it.

You haven't thought this stuff through.

You are liable for the NPPR if you bought into a boom time estate in Carrick on Shannon and now find yourself in massive negative equity, forced to move elsewhere for lower paid work to service the mortgage and renting a room in a house somewhere.

This person (and there are many of them by the way) is fully liable for the NPPR on their "2nd property" which they CANNOT sell and possibly CANNOT find a tenant for!

 

[RainyDay]

You haven't thought this stuff through.

You are liable for the NPPR if you bought into a boom time estate in Carrick on Shannon and now find yourself in massive negative equity, forced to move elsewhere for lower paid work to service the mortgage and renting a room in a house somewhere.

This person (and there are many of them by the way) is fully liable for the NPPR on their "2nd property" which they CANNOT sell and possibly CANNOT find a tenant for!

What's that got to do with size of penalties for non-payment?

 

[hippy1975]

Sorry to hear about your family situation. I'm sure it is very difficult.

If the penalties are low, Revenue will be left to the bottom of the list of things to sort out. If the penalties are high, Revenue will jump to the top of the list of things to sort out.

Revenue didnt collect the NPPR, councils did.
Revenue do collect the property tax, those penalties are lower (or none luckily in my brother's case), so in my view amethyst's and others' point stands that the NPPR penalties are not proportionate to the fee or to other penalties for late payment of fees.

I think at this point rainyday you must accept that there is a valid question here that there is no satisfactory answer for.

 

[murphaph]

What's that got to do with size of penalties for non-payment?

You tell me. You are the one suggesting that merely being liable for the NPPR suggests that a person has the means to pay it. I was just pointing out the error in your logic. Being liable to the NPPR indicates nothing about a person's ability to pay the tax.

You took the position that because a liable person "[has] the resources to have/own/keep a 2nd property, then you have the resources to pay the tax on it." and I believe that statement to be false in many cases. Do you still contend that being liable for the NPPR indicates that you by extension have the means to pay it?

 

[amethyst]

RainyDay has not conceded that if someone paid a year late due to Alzheimer's being involved, and penalties were 120,000% leading to complete loss of the property, that there would be injustice.

Does his point of view here really warrant the attention it is getting? Maybe we should just be glad he is not on the judicial bench?

 

[RainyDay]

Revenue didnt collect the NPPR, councils did.
Revenue do collect the property tax, those penalties are lower (or none luckily in my brother's case), so in my view amethyst's and others' point stands that the NPPR penalties are not proportionate to the fee or to other penalties for late payment of fees.

My point stands, regardless of who is responsible for collecting it. If the penalty is light, the State will be left swinging in the wind by many. If the penalty is heavy, the State won't be left swinging in the wind by many.

I think at this point rainyday you must accept that there is a valid question here that there is no satisfactory answer for.

Again, there has been no credible scenario painted to explain why someone would be late in paying the tax.

You tell me. You are the one suggesting that merely being liable for the NPPR suggests that a person has the means to pay it. I was just pointing out the error in your logic. Being liable to the NPPR indicates nothing about a person's ability to pay the tax.

You took the position that because a liable person "[has] the resources to have/own/keep a 2nd property, then you have the resources to pay the tax on it." and I believe that statement to be false in many cases. Do you still contend that being liable for the NPPR indicates that you by extension have the means to pay it?

If somebody has an asset, they have some income from that asset. There is a rental market for every property, if it is pitched at the right level. If they have income, they can pay the tax. If their mortgage exceeds the rental, then if the choose to pay the bank first (improving their own net worth in the process) then the State is left swinging in the wind. If the penalty is high, they will put the State first.

RainyDay has not conceded that if someone paid a year late due to Alzheimer's being involved, and penalties were 120,000% leading to complete loss of the property, that there would be injustice.

Is there any chance that we could stick to discussing realistic situations and not plucking ridiculous hypothetical scenarios out of the air?

So again, tell me about the property owned by the person with Alzheimer's - who is paying the ESB bill? who is insuring the property? who is fixing the water leak?

 

[murphaph]

If somebody has an asset, they have some income from that asset.

A property in negative equity it is a liability, not an asset ;-)

There is a rental market for every property, if it is pitched at the right level. If they have income, they can pay the tax. If their mortgage exceeds the rental, then if the choose to pay the bank first (improving their own net worth in the process) then the State is left swinging in the wind. If the penalty is high, they will put the State first.

So you believe not that the NPPR penalties are too high, but rather that the penalties for non-compliance wrt other taxes are too low? This is the only logical conclusion from your argument as presented.

By the way, some property in Ireland in 2013 really is not tenant-able as there are no jobs in the area and people, including the previous occupant and owner have simply left to find work somewhere with better prospects.

So again, tell me about the property owned by the person with Alzheimer's - who is paying the ESB bill? who is insuring the property? who is fixing the water leak?

The guy who lives next door in his own home and doesn't own any other residential property and thus has never even heard of the NPPR ;-)

 

[RainyDay]

A property in negative equity it is a liability, not an asset ;-)

By the way, some property in Ireland in 2013 really is not tenant-able as there are no jobs in the area and people, including the previous occupant and owner have simply left to find work somewhere with better prospects.

So if there really is an untenantable negative equity property out there, then the owner needs to get that situation sorted, whether through bankruptcy or whatever. The NPPR isn't material in that overall situation.

So you believe not that the NPPR penalties are too high, but rather that the penalties for non-compliance wrt other taxes are too low? This is the only logical conclusion from your argument as presented.

That isn't a logical conclusion. That is an illogical, exaggerated, provocative, trolling conclusion.

The guy who lives next door in his own home and doesn't own any other residential property and thus has never even heard of the NPPR ;-)

I'm not quite sure how a neighbour ends up paying somebody's house insurance, so it doesn't seem like a very realistic scenario, but here goes. OK, so the guy next door doesn't have any skin in the game. The neighbour doesn't really care whether the value of the property is eaten up by charges and penalties.

If there is a relative/beneficiary out there who cares about the end value of their inheritance, let them get the NPPR charge sorted. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, just like in other areas, for the very good reason that every chancer in the country will come back with 'Aw I didn't know' at the end of the day if they get away with it.

 

[murphaph]

Then I ask again, why not jack up the penalties for all late payment of all taxes, fines and charges due to the state?

Why should the NPPR stand alone with such high interest rates attached if it's such a good idea to charge punitive rates to ensure compliance?

 

[Luternau]

@rainyday
The simple fact of the matter is that the tax is fair, the penalty is not. The application of these penalties was poorly thought through. Revenue, who are well able to collect taxes and penalties, charge about 9% pa on late taxes and if penalties are levied, they are normally related to the tax owed-and there is discretion.
The question is, why not follow a similar proven line for NPPR? Now that responsibility for collecting it will be with Revenue, why should there be a two tier system for income tax/NPPR defaulters? Many income tax defaulters will pay less interest and penalties than NPPR defaulters. Why so inequitable? That is the point of this thread-everything else (reason for late payment etc) is moot.

 

[amethyst]

Again, as far as I see it, RainyDay does not do disproportionate punishment as a concept. At least, not if NPPR is involved.

The NPPR late penalties are ~13 TIMES the regular income tax penalties. The penalties exceed the amount due in 10 months, less than one year.

The penalties are excessive and also arbitrary.

 

[ajapale]

The tax is fair, the penalty is not.

That is the point of this thread-everything else (reason for late payment etc) is moot.

Nice summary Luthernau.

Would that be a good note in which to close the thread?

 

[Brendan Burgess]

It was suggested to me that the closure of this thread has prevented people from being updated on the facts of the case and the potential for challenging the charge.

I had a look at the thread to see if I could extract the "practical" issues from the "debating" issues, but it's not really possible.

Would someone like to start a new thread as a Key Post which would be a useful summary



1) Summarise the facts of the case - an FAQ format is often the best way.
2) Set out the options for appealing/challenging

Avoid inflammatory language e.g. "extortionate".


If someone does this, we will moderate the thread heavily and remove any debate on the appropriateness or not of the penalties which has been covered extensively in this thread.