That's irrelevant. The rental income is still assessable income. Certain expenses are allowable for tax purposes.It does not cover the mortgage on the property so we top up the shortfall every month. So I am unclear what payments we need to be logging here. We never get the rental income really, it goes straight to the mortgage provider, and we pay Revenue our income tax bill from other sources.
I know it is assessable income for Revenue purposes. My concern is about logging the payments on this new platform. Do I need to do this monthly now? Up till now I just totalled the rental income once a year and paid tax off those figures once mortgage interest deductions and expenses are accounted for. Is this more of a real-time reporting regime now?That's irrelevant. The rental income is still assessable income. Certain expenses are allowable for tax purposes.
Irish rental income
This page gives a general idea on how Irish rental income is taxedwww.revenue.ie
It seems the rental notification (RN) must be made monthly by the tenant/agent. Good for the landlord as he can see if things are going awry but tenants/agents will not be pleased about having to log into ROS every month for this.
Thanks, merged them both here.Similar thread here?
Non-Resident Landlord Withholding Tax reforms
My wife and I are working in the UK for a couple of years but moving back to Ireland shortly. While we have been over in the UK my wife has registered her father as a collection agent with Revenue in respect of rental income on an Irish rental property, though in practice we do the Form 11...www.askaboutmoney.com
Besides, under the new CGT regime which requires the non-resident vendor of a property to have a Letter of No Audit from Revenue before a solicitor is empowered to pay them the net proceeds, Revenue have every vendor on the hook if they have outstanding tax returns or payments relating to the rental income. So the system neatly polices itself.I just don't understand why NRLs need to be treated differently at all. If a NRL decides not to pay tax then Revenue can move on the property. It's the easiest type of tax dodger to bring to book because there's generally an asset or more worth a considerable amount. A NRL who is intent on tax evasion isn't going to even reach out to Revenue in the first place. They will not be in the Revenue system to send these letters to. NRLs like me who are known to Revenue are the ones most likely to be tax compliant, at least as tax compliant as resident landlords.
I would like to know the actual rates of tax evasion by NRLs who are in the Revenue system. This measure will do nothing to combat any possible tax evasion by NRLs that are not known to Revenue, just like the current bizarre regime.
You're absolutely right. It's a bizarre approach that seems rooted in anti landlord hysteria. It's also runs counter to the stated intention to "do something" for landlords in the upcoming budget.The whole regime dates from a prehistoric era when:
The fact of the matter is that it's no easier for a non-resident landlord to evade tax than a resident one. The whole regime should have been done away with with Revenue moving to a targeted, risk-based approach to audit.
- Revenue didn't even have a list of properties in the country, never mind knew who owned them. Now with the LPT they have both;
- There was no national register of tenancies, now there is the RTB which supplies data to Revenue;
- Spontaneous and automatic exchange of information with foreign tax authorities was much less advanced than it is now.
Interesting point, I was wondering about that myself. Even if you accept that the Revenue are legitimately entitled to put measures in place to minimise risk of evasion by landlords in other EU states (which is a dubious proposition anyway) there's no way this could be seen as a proportional and necessary response that infringes as lightly as possible on the basic EU right to do business in other member states.I wonder is it even legal to compel NRL landlords who are resident in another member state of the European Union to have a local representative pocketing a share of the rent for simply forwarding money to Revenue and the landlord. It is clearly at least against the spirit of the freedom of movement of people and capital to do this.
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?