As my rent is very low and I have no mortgage, the 14K tax-free would be very positive for me in the short term.If they matched the rent a room relief of first 14k as others have proposed on here, presumably you wouldn't be able to deduct any expenses on the excess, that would be taxed at 52%, so it wouldn't actually work out as a huge saving for me. I'd get an improvement of roughly 1% in yield terms, it wouldn't cover the cost of the risk events above. Personally it wouldn't keep me in, but in conjunction with other measures in terms of control of your property and avoiding regulations that impact on sale value it might.
Reducing the overall tax level to 20% would be similar in that the tax savings would be (very roughly) 1% bump in yield.
It’s very simple, same threshold as for rent a room, first €14k tax free without utilising lossesIt seems ' the tax treatment of landlords' is now to be revisited.So sticking to the title of this thread I just wonder how this could be done and if other landlords on AMM have views on what might is possible,feasible and acceptable in order to keep them in the market with regard to Tax.I know there are other issues but my question is specifically in relation to Tax
I assume this won't change until the next budget?It’s very simple, same threshold as for rent a room, first €14k tax free without utilising losses
There's not a hope in hell of anything like this being ever introduced.It’s very simple, same threshold as for rent a room, first €14k tax free without utilising losses
Further demonising of landlords and thumb-twiddling seem the most likely courses of action. If I was paying an effective 52% income tax on my rental profits I would also be looking very hard for something else to put the money into, given the risk of overholding under the current regime. I can tolerate more risk than people paying that tax rate as I only have rental income in Ireland and my country of residence does not tax Irish rental income at all, so I pay a lot less tax on my rental profits than many landlords here, so the rewards are greater and hence my appetite for risk is greater.What then is possible?
Rent a room doesn't work like that. If you go €1 above €14k, you're liable for tax for the full amount i.e. €14001 is fully taxable, no relief.It’s very simple, same threshold as for rent a room, first €14k tax free without utilising losses
WHAT about utilities oil electricity bins gas etc..I think they are included in the 14000K,so as an example if you include say 3k for them per annum then you are only getting 11000k rent tax free per annum.Perhaps i am wrong about this!.Can anyone clarify?.Thanks.[ if i am correct then with 14001k you would be paying tax on 3k of utilities twice ,once when you purchase them and also again a second time]Rent a room doesn't work like that. If you go €1 above €14k, you're liable for tax for the full amount i.e. €14001 is fully taxable, no relief.
Not sure what this means - REITs are not subject to tax on their profits from rental income but they have to distribute 85% or more of this to the shareholders who generally are taxed - so the tax is paid, just collected from the beneficial owners.... REITs should not have a tax advantage over small landlords
I don't know. What the left likes to refer to as "vulture funds". I was under the impression these institutional investors were at a tax advantage over small time landlords. Perhaps I am wrong or just used the wrong terminology??What do you mean by big landlords? What number of properties qualifies?
The left as usual are talking nonsense, on every front.I don't know. What the left likes to refer to as "vulture funds". I was under the impression these institutional investors were at a tax advantage over small time landlords. Perhaps I am wrong or just used the wrong terminology??
Not sure what this means - REITs are not subject to tax on their profits from rental income but they have to distribute 85% or more of this to the shareholders who generally are taxed - so the tax is paid, just collected from the beneficial owners
No. Why should they be? All traders etc aren't treated equally, for example.So all landlords are treated equally by the tax code?
Who here has demonstrated that such a difference exists?in the end there seems there is a difference in how "big landlords" (call them whatever you like I don't care) and "small landlords" are treated by the tax code, which was the point I was making and which I think was actually clear enough in the first place.
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?