mandelbrot
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,330
Dear Judge,
I am a compliant tax-payer. I read whatever Revenue publish and abide by their advice and instructions. For example, in their Revenue guide IT70 it is states
" the following give examples of what expenditure you may deduct when calculating your rental income
- rates payable to a local authority"
I am unaware of despite searches of any other advice given by Revenue to the any member of the npublic seeking that advice.
Section 97(2) TCA 1997
....
(2) The deductions authorised by this subsection shall be deductions by reference to any or all of the following matters—
....
(b) any sums borne by the person chargeable...
in respect of any rate levied by a local authority, whether such sums are by law chargeable on such person or on some other person;
In which case I would have to admire your willingness to stick to your principles!
I knew you wouldn't be able to resist McGibney!
I'm currently in dispute with the Revenue for a sum of €2.85.
If someone feels that they have been wronged by the Revenue, then surely they should proceed by whatever means necessary to resolve the case?
I certainly will not be handing over even a cent more than I'm legally required to.
Er, I haven't said anythingI just copied the legislation to inform other users of what the law actually says
Btw, if you are in a position to disclose the source of the quote in your opening post, that would be great. Thanks.
Not specifically Revenue, but more the government.
Aren't the government due to be paying more billions out today? - (The day of Ivor Callely's arrest)
The Revenue are collecting money for the State, so I would have a 'bee in my bonnet' about that.
Anyway, all this is OT.
Mandelbrot or TMcGibney- whose opinions i respect can either of you could state why the NPPr and Propety Charges are not deductible (- without quoting from some private or unofficial source.)
All we have at the moment is the reply from Eugene Creighton's office to the ITI Nick, so we'll have to work with what we have!Mandelbrot or TMcGibney- whose opinions i respect can either of you could state why the NPPr and Propety Charges are not deductible (- without quoting from some private or unofficial source.)
In the letter, the Revenue official doesn't address the issue of whether the NPPR constitutes a rate, but does state that "there does seem to be a number of differences" between the NPPR charge and a rate. Because he is of the opinion that the charge isn't levied by the Local Authority, whether or not it is in fact a rate, is irrelevant.The Act quoted above with specific reference to 2b(i) would seem to add credence to my belief that these charges are deductible:-
They are both rates, in so much as they are a charge on property to pay for the provision of services of local authorities.
The fact that the local authority are the collection agent, does not necessarily mean that they are the one levying the charge. This of course depends on the meaning of "levied" in this context.They are both levied by the local authorities in so much as it is to the local authorities that one makes payment and it is the local authority that can decide whether one is exempt or not.
I gather that a Revenue official stated ,though not publicly nor in any tax briefing, that he believed that "levied" could ONLY mean something that was introduced and imposed by the local authority. Therefore the NPPR and PropCharge were not included in 2bi as "they were not levied by a local authority."
His belief can de disputed in three ways :-
- the semantic argument as to what does "levied" mean.
- in other EU state such charges are tax deductible
- and above all the question of literal interpretation versus the intent of the legislation. Increasingly in legal disputes the intent of the legal phrasing is considered more important than a literal interpretation. So, unless central government deliberately intended and stated that NPPR/P.C. are nondeductible and if the Act states that local rates are deductible, thenm it is an arguable case that all such charges are deductible.
I wonder why accountants without any official words from Revenue advise their clients not to deduct these charges,considering:-
-there's only a small chance of a Revenue audit and if the client is otherwise above board why should he care?
- Even if the Revenue auditor insisted these charges were nondeductible do accountants really believe that he'd impose a penalty ,especially if one showed him Revenue's own printed advice as per IT70 ?
- Surely the most that would happen is one would pay what one owes with ,possibly, some interest.
Consider, accountants, the savings one makes if one deducts these charges over, say ,five years:-
Say one lets ten properties- that's presently a cost of 3.000 euros x 5 years = 15.000 euros. That's a tax saving on ca. 7.500 euros if one deducts these charges.
And as charges may increase the savings get bigger.
It's crazy not to deduct them -and increasingly costly.
No sign of the tax briefing yet - but it doesn't necessarily make him a liar - it all depends on your definition of "near future"..!The letter from the Revenue official ends with a promise "to arrange a tax briefing in the near future ".
this was in October 2010. Has there been such a tax-briefing on this subject?
If no, then it was an incorrect statement from that official. Therefore what credence can be placed on any other statement in that letter ?
That's besides the suspicion that the non-appearance of such a promised tax briefing raises doubts within Revenue as to the solidity of his argument.
If it makes you feel any happier as soon as I finish this post I'm going to go and start correspondence to Income & Capital Taxes Division, to see if an ebrief might be forthcoming on this topic...
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?