Rent relief - non resident landlord

L

LastApache

Guest
Hi. My situation is this. I have rented a room in a house for the past two years. As we got the house through some contacts the rent was fairly low for the area and I never bothered to apply for rent relief.

Now the landlord has put up the rent I thought it was about time I claimed my rent relief. So far, so simple. However it turns out that since our landlord is in the North and we've been paying them directly through their bank account, we were supposed to hold back 20% of our rent and pay it to the Revenue every year. If this amount isn't deducted by the tenant, they can become liable for it! It seems rather unfair that we are liable for someone elses tax. It also means (I would guess) that if we haven't held back this tax, we're not entitled to our rent relief?
 
Rent relief and your obligation to withhold tax are two separate issues and not dependent on each other.

However, claiming the rent relief could alert the Revenue to the fact that you have a non-resident landlord and are not paid over the withholding tax. Do you have any idea if your landlord is declaring his Irish rent? If so, the Irish Revenue are unlikely to pursue you for the tax.
 
Rent relief and your obligation to withhold tax are two separate issues and not dependent on each other.

However, claiming the rent relief could alert the Revenue to the fact that you have a non-resident landlord and are not paid over the withholding tax. Do you have any idea if your landlord is declaring his Irish rent? If so, the Irish Revenue are unlikely to pursue you for the tax.

I don't know. I'd sincerely doubt it but I guess I could find out. If they are declaring their income from our rent I don't suppose we have a problem.
 
Do you have any idea if your landlord is declaring his Irish rent? If so, the Irish Revenue are unlikely to pursue you for the tax.

The Revenue cannot pursue the tenant for the tax, following the precedent set by an Ombudsman's decision a number of years ago. This applies regardless of whether or not the landlord is compliant. So the tenant has absolutely nothing to worry about - and is entitled to Rent Relief.
 
Hard one as to what to do going forward. Do you deduct the 20% tax from now on and claim the rent relief from now. This in itself will alert revenue or do you claim rent relief also in the past. Don't know if an accountant or threshold could help in these circumstances.
 
Last edited:
The Revenue cannot pursue the tenant for the tax, following the precedent set by an Ombudsman's decision a number of years ago. This applies regardless of whether or not the landlord is compliant.

Revenue need to update their [broken link removed]then

Quote from Guide

What if Rents are payable to a non-resident landlord?

If a landlord resides outside the country and rent is paid directly to him/her or to his/her bank account either in the State or abroad, tax must be deducted by the tenant at the standard rate of tax (currently 20%) from the gross rents payable.

Failure to deduct tax leaves the tenant liable for the tax that should have been deducted
 
Revenue need to update their guide to rental income then
They do indeed. Or perhaps they just don't like being proven wrong?

But surely there is still an obligation on the tenant to deduct the tax if they want to claim tax relief.
Well that's what the Revenue said ... illegally, according to the Ombudsman.
Btw the case I referred to goes back to 1998 :eek:


[broken link removed]
Revenue Commissioners
Non-Resident Landlords - Tax Deductions

Dealing fairly with people involves accepting that rules and regulations should not be applied so inflexibly or rigidly as to create inequity. The Revenue Commissioners recognised this in its final response in the case of a tenant who was unaware that she should have been withholding tax from rent paid to a non-resident landlord.

Since 1969 it has been a requirement of Irish tax law that a person paying rent to a non-resident landlord should deduct income tax at the standard rate from the gross rental income and pass on the deduction to the Revenue Commissioners. This form of withholding tax applies both in the case of residential and commercial property rental. My complainant, probably like the vast majority of people, was quite unaware of this provision. In early 1998 she became aware of her possible entitlement to income tax relief on rent paid and she applied to the Inspector of Taxes for this relief. The Inspector notified her that she was due a tax refund in respect of rent paid totalling �265 for the years 1996/7 and 1997/8. However, the Inspector also informed her that, as her landlord resided outside the state, she (the tenant) should have been withholding income tax from the rent being paid. Where such tax is not withheld, the tenant is liable for payment of the tax instead. Accordingly, the Inspector told my complainant that she owed an amount of �801 for the years 1996/7 and 1997/8 which, after deduction of the tax relief otherwise due to her, meant that she owed a net amount of �536.

The woman subsequently complained to my Office on the grounds that the Inspector’s decision was inequitable and also on the grounds that the Inspector had failed to explain fully the basis for the decision. On the former point, she felt it unreasonable that she should be penalised for her ignorance of a fine point of tax law; and on the latter point, she claimed the information leaflet on the matter - which she did not see until after the event - did not make clear that the tenant becomes liable where he or she fails to withhold tax from the rent payments. My complainant’s sense of grievance was added to by the fact that her sister, with whom she co-rented the house, and who applied at the same time and giving the same information, was given the full tax relief on rent paid. In responding to the complaint, the Revenue Commissioners decided to waive the outstanding amount of �536 on the grounds that my complainant clearly was not aware of the requirement to deduct tax from the rent payments and also because payment of the tax would be a financial burden on her. All of this was contingent on my complainant complying with the tax requirement in the future - in fact, she found alternative accommodation before the case was resolved.

Whereas I was pleased with the ultimate outcome in this case, it does raise the general issue of whether it is reasonable to expect ordinary residential tenants to act as tax collectors in the case of non-resident landlords. I appreciate that the provision may have validity in the case of lettings to commercial or business organisations. But is it reasonable to expect a residential tenant, who may be elderly or have little experience of tax affairs, to be either aware of, or have the capacity to manage, this type of requirement? Indeed, tenants may not even be aware that the landlord’s “usual place of abode is outside the State” (which is the technical term used in the law). These are questions which might be considered in any review of the current legislation.
 
Back
Top