Seanad debates

Thursday, 20 November 2014

Valuation (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2012: Report and Final Stages

 

11:50 am

Photo of Simon HarrisSimon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senators Quinn and Barrett for this amendment. I have tried to explore and discuss it rationally. The issue of profitability and how it interacts with the rates system was discussed on Committee Stage. I made the point that it is the job of the Valuation Office to attach a value to a building. It is then through other agency interactions that the amount to be paid is arrived at. I also flagged my concerns about linking this process to profitability.
The proposed amendment would allow for a valuation to be altered or revised downwards between revaluations where a decrease in profitability has occurred as evidenced by company records. The legislation currently provides for the maintenance of valuation lists through the revision process and by way of revaluation. Revision is the mechanism whereby physical changes to rateable properties are reflected in the valuation lists, while revaluation takes account of economic factors or the relative change in values between property locations or uses over time. The revision process, by its nature, is ongoing whereas revaluation is periodic.
The legislation provides for regular revaluations no sooner than five years and no later than ten years. This model of revaluation cycles is common in jurisdictions with annual charges on a business property similar to commercial rates. A change in profitability of a particular occupier of a property could arise for several reasons and may in no way reflect a change in the value or the relative value of that property vis-à-visother rateable properties in that rating authority area. Downward revisions of rateable values of certain properties to reflect decreases in the profitability of the occupiers of those properties would advantage or disadvantage other ratepayers over time and undermine the degree of equity and uniformity inherent in the rateable valuation system.
I understand the spirit of the amendment but I do not feel it fits in with the job of the Valuation Office in attaching a value to a building. Accordingly, I cannot accept this amendment.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.