Not paying tax on rental income-good idea?

Re: not paying tax on rental income.

then you are in the minority of landlords that does.

I dont think you have a clue about this subject. Most landlords pay tax.
Perhaps you are confusing legally paying no tax-but making a tax return (through gearing, tax breaks etc,) with paying no tax by not making a return at all-or an improper return-otherwise known as tax evasion.
The former is legal-once you stay within the law, and the latter is illegal.
 
Re: not paying tax on rental income.

Madisona,
more anecdotal evidence, i do know a lot of landlords, and i do not know any who don't pay the tax due on this income - yeah they may fiddle around a little re what exactly should have been classified as repairs and what should be capitalised, but they still pay.
 
Re: not paying tax on rental income.

In reply to earlier posters who asked about Rent supplement, landlord details and the amount of supplement paid to them (or their tenants) is sent by HSE/Dept of Social & Family Affairs to Revenue each year. This has happened for the past 3 years.
Obviously it's up to Revenue to act on the information they receive.
 
Re: not paying tax on rental income.

In reply to earlier posters who asked about Rent supplement, landlord details and the amount of supplement paid to them (or their tenants) is sent by HSE/Dept of Social & Family Affairs to Revenue each year. This has happened for the past 3 years.
Obviously it's up to Revenue to act on the information they receive.
So this directly contradicts what madisona said earlier?
 
Re: not paying tax on rental income.

I also take offence at your statement madisona. I am a landlady, am registered with PRTB and pay my taxes on time, every time!
 
Re: not paying tax on rental income.

So this directly contradicts what madisona said earlier?

Yes it does.

The relevant legislation is Section 888, Consolidated Taxes Act,
1997. This legislation provides that the following information
may be requested by the Revenue Commissioners from Health
Boards (now the HSE), Local Authorities or any body paying a rental subsidy

* Address of each rented property in which rent supplement is/was paid
* Name and address of the person to whom the property belongs
* Statement of all rent supplements paid
* Other particulars which may be specified.

The act itself may be read on [broken link removed]
 
Re: not paying tax on rental income.

Thanks for that info. Maybe madisona can explain the earlier comments so?
 
Re: not paying tax on rental income.

Thanks for that info. Maybe madisona can explain the earlier comments so?
Perhaps an expectation that the good people of AAM will accept assertion as fact without question? :p

*sticking my hand up as another member of that alleged minority of PRTB registered tax compliant landlord types*
 
Re: not paying tax on rental income.

Thanks for that info. Maybe madisona can explain the earlier comments so?
Not agreeing with madisona (due to my being yet another member of the tax abiding landlord brigade) but the comments stated that Revenue may request the info. If Revenue don't request the info then HSE (or whoever) don't have to provide the info.

Mind you they should do it anyway out of good practice...
 
Newby, believe me, the legislation may allow revenue to "request" the information, but when they came calling to HSE, it was more of an order! :eek:

The info is transmitted electronically every year, in Jan/Feb.
 
Re: not paying tax on rental income.

Not agreeing with madisona (due to my being yet another member of the tax abiding landlord brigade) but the comments stated that Revenue may request the info. If Revenue don't request the info then HSE (or whoever) don't have to provide the info.
But madisona said:
The revenue has tried repeatedly over the years to get the government to give it details of which landlords it is paying money to and how much it is giving them for tax assessment purposes. The government has refused.
and
The only valid reason for the governments decision to withold this information from the Revenue is to facilitate tax evasion
both of which are contradicted by gipimann's comments and sources above. And I also just realised how sweeping the second comment is now!
 
Fair enough lads (ClubMan & Gipimann). The only point I was making was that the tax law says that Revenue must request it first. If Revenue has requested the info then under tax law they must be provided with the info (per Gipi's reference to the Taxes Acts).

Incidentally, how do ye guys know that the info has been requested. I have no idea if that sort of info is in the public domain but I don't remember reading about it (completely open to correction as too busy to check now).
 
Incidentally, how do ye guys know that the info has been requested.
I never said that it was. madisona did and claimed that the request was rebuffed or blocked by the Government. gipimann also seems to suggest that the information was requested and that it was provided.
 
Incidentally, how do ye guys know that the info has been requested. I have no idea if that sort of info is in the public domain but I don't remember reading about it (completely open to correction as too busy to check now).
Well, Gipimann knows because of working in the area (public profiles have their uses!). And I imagine it's one of those things that's public domain but about which there's not a huge amount of discussion, so not necessarily easy to find out via casual web searches and the like. Probably just one of the many things one doesn't know until affected or a practitioner.
 
"All property is theft" Proudhon

"Those that Buy and Sell Land, and are landlords, have got it either by Oppression, or Murder, or Theft" The Levellers Manifesto



O dear. I seem to have ruffled a few feathers. Let me try to respond. Firstly my previous posts were mostly based on half remembered things I had read or heard over the years. I would also be ideologically left leaning and think that there is nothing too wrong with sometimes playing devils advocate to stimulate debate, although I should have done a bit of research before making generalised statements that were probably true a few years ago but may not still be applicable today. I seem to have made some incorrect statements of fact which I retract.

I lived in several rented properties in the past and never once had a tenancy agreement, rent book or got a receipt. I checked recently on a few of my old landlords and none of them are on the PRTB online register. My opinion of landlords in general is also probably coloured by the not untypical experience of having deposits not returned for no reason and the inability in the past to do anything about it (legally).

I do not know how many landlords pay tax although I would now accept that it is probable that the majority do today. Would it be reasonable to assume that any landlord paying tax is probably also registered with the PRTB and also that not every registered landlord pays tax? In 2005 there were about 80,000 properties registered although there are estimated to be at least 170,000 rental properties in the state

In 2003, 60,000 declared rental income (although not all paid tax on it), the only figure I could find, which would seem to indicate a certain level of tax evasion. I do not know whether that figure is higher for 2006 and if it is whether enforcement by the Revenue is responsible.

Is an attack on landlords racist? I think that the word racist is used much too frequently these days as a way to stifle discussion and debate. I would consider politicians, landlords, lawyers, estate agents and other privileged groups in our society as well able to defend themselves. I also do not quite see how saying that some landlords evade tax is an attack on landlords that do pay. Saying that some Irishmen abuse children, beat their wives or kill people is not an attack on me even though I am Irish and a man.


Regarding the sharing of information with Revenue on rent allowance payments to landlords I remembered a discussion on the issue from a few years ago and assumed that it was still the case that payment details were not passed on. (the justification given by the Fianna Fail politician at the time was that landlords would be far less likely to accept RA tenants if by doing so they brought themselves to the attention of Revenue) It seems that this is no longer the case and I was incorrect in stating that it was. I am fairly sure however that registration with the PTRB is still not checked before payments are made
 
In 2005 there were about 80,000 properties registered although there are estimated to be at least 170,000 rental properties in the state

In 2003, 60,000 declared rental income

Just curious about where you got these figures from? I presume the 80,000 figure is from the most recent PRTB annual report online? What about the others?
 
"According to tenants rights group Threshold, four out of five landlords are not registered for tax purposes at the moment.....Latest figures showed 60,200 individuals and 4,300 companies are declaring rental income on their tax returns. "

Examiner June 06, 2003
[broken link removed]


"According to the 2002 census, there was 141,459 households living in private rented accommodation."
[broken link removed]
 
"According to tenants rights group Threshold, four out of five landlords are not registered for tax purposes at the moment.....Latest figures showed 60,200 individuals and 4,300 companies are declaring rental income on their tax returns. "
But where did they get the figures from?
"According to the 2002 census, there was 141,459 households living in private rented accommodation."
There isn't necessarily a one to one mapping between rental properties and renting households. Lots of individual rental properties could contain more than one household. The 80,000 properties mentioned as registered above could well cover 140K households couldn't they?
 
"According to tenants rights group Threshold, four out of five landlords are not registered for tax purposes at the moment.....Latest figures showed 60,200 individuals and 4,300 companies are declaring rental income on their tax returns. "
In 2005 there were about 80,000 properties registered although there are estimated to be at least 170,000 rental properties in the state

These two statements do not add up. As of 2005, you have 80,000 registered properties with an estimated 170,000 rental properties. At worst, that makes it about 1 in 2 landlords not registered. Your figures show 64,500 tax returns with rental tax. Based on the fact that a number of the individuals paying rental tax are likely to have more than one rental property, and the companies are unlikely to have only one, I would imagine there are significantly more than 64,500 properties represented in those tax returns.
 
Hi Madisona,

First of all fair dues to you on coming back into the debate to address all the questions and for acknowledging some statements were made in error and not just leaving them out there.

I would consider politicians, landlords, lawyers, estate agents and other privileged groups in our society as well able to defend themselves.

I just want to address the above statement. There was a time when that statement would be true but in this day and age when property prices are so high and people are so heavily mortgaged it no longer, imo, applies. Yes, I know there are rich faceless landlords out there with innumerable properties I am not talking about them, I am talking about the new generation of landlords many of whom need to supplement rent with their own money to meet repayments. They have a choice they can bow out if it gets too much and sell (which is what I did - former landlady, prtb member, rent tax payer) but it still doesnt mean we should be bundled into a group with politicians!

In regarding to the "defend themselves" statement, there is surprisingly little (I am tempted to say no) protection out there for landlords. PRTB member or not (hopefull this will change). If your tenants destroy your property, stop paying rent, there is nothing you can do to "defend yourself". If they squat you have to go to the high court to get them out and they (not the landlord) are protected by squatters rights. More importantly there is nothing you can do to protect other landlords from accepting these thieves (no other word for that type of tenant). The references they provide can be easily falsied and the deposit rarely covers the damage. Its the tenant that has the power (and therefore, if anybody, be in the group with the politicians!) and the landlord that needs support in "defending themselves".

On that point, in those properties you rented without contract/rent book why didnt you insist on a contract? That is all you have to do. As a tenant it was your right all you had to do was exercise it.

Just my 2c, apologies if Ive taken this slightly off thread.
 
Back
Top