Comments on: Tax Amnesty 2009 – what you didn’t know we had one?

By: Charles

Charles — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:29:37 +0000

Hey yeah,
There is a way to legally get a mortgage and convey a land without actually being required to pay stamp duty – if you’re dealing with unregistered land and essentially hand over the title deeds without anything more, the courts will hold that you intended to convey it and you don’t have to pay stamp duty on it. To get a mortgage then, all the bank requires is that you read out a declaration that you know what you’re doing, and they pony up the cash. And it would mean a solicitor wouldn’t even have to get involved so it wouldn’t be a matter for the law society.

By: Fergus O'Rourke

Fergus O'Rourke — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 09:24:12 +0000

Yes, there was general hilarity at that down here too. The conversation took place with several other lawyers present, though, and it seems that it is true. Not for long, I’d say.

By: Maman Poulet

Maman Poulet — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 01:56:43 +0000

Laughing here at Revenue refusing money… apologies for cynicism!

By: Fergus O'Rourke

Fergus O'Rourke — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:03:29 +0000

SeanR,

I am at a loss to guess how the taxman was going to know about the 1968 land transfer to which I referred above, until the documents were presented for stamping. So, let’s have more “sense”.

By: Fergus O'Rourke

Fergus O'Rourke — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 17:59:17 +0000

I have since spoken to a solicitor who does some conveyancing. He claims that the Revenue themselves are responsible for quite a bit of delay, as if everything is not perfect on the forms submitted, they refuse to take the money !

By: Paschal

Paschal — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:55:39 +0000

I wish I lived in a perfect world. The fact of the matter is I don’t. Sometimes it is easier to Revenue to issue an amnesty and collect something rather than spend a lot of time and money tracking people down in the hope of collecting it all. All revenue seem to have missed out on here (other than earlier payment) is the penalties – I’m not even sure how much this amounts to. Are you?

Sure spinning this as some kind of mad conspiracy to aid the “property developers/magnates” (that was particularly blogtastic – I’d love to know how you figured out they were developers & magnates) suits your article but it will do little for your blood pressure. If you’re not sure how much was waived in terms of penalties what are you so angry about?

I may be wrong about the above and it may be a big cover up. My guess however is that it is simply the result of the inefficiencies and leakage you get in any system.

Paschal
(In the interest of disclosure I’m not a : revenue official, FF’er, solicitor, property developer, property magnate, regular magnet)

PS You say there was an “amnesty on fines and interest” even though the article you quote clearly says that “interest of €7.19 million” was collected. Surely that would imply that there was an amnesty on fines only. Am I missing something there?

By: MediabiteMiriam

MediabiteMiriam — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:36:40 +0000

This should be headline news – thanks for bringing it to our attention.

By: Maman Poulet

Maman Poulet — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:24:44 +0000

EVM thats what I understand – no penalties were due apart from €25.

By: Maman Poulet

Maman Poulet — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:22:54 +0000

Thanks all – and Adrian I’ve got requests into to the Law Society and Revenue for a response!

By: EVM

EVM — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:22:12 +0000

So, if I understand this correctly, the 56 day period allowed solicitors to get deeds stamped without incurring the ‘upto 30%’ penalty, even though the stamp duty may have been overdue for years ?

Where there were penalties of thousands of euro payable, they have been fixed at 25 quid ?