Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

130. To ask the Minister for Finance the measures being put in place for the allowance of the retrospective tax deductibility of the non-principal private residence, NPPR, in view of the recent High Court decision; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6669/17]

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

156. To ask the Minister for Finance the current position regarding the tax deductibility of the non-principal private residence, NPPR, charge following the recent decision of the High Court in this matter; the issues this judgment raises in view of the fact that the Revenue Commissioners have previously disallowed the NPPR as a deductible expense; if persons affected can now seek revised assessments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7218/17]

Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to take Questions Nos. 130 and 156 together.

I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that the High Court decision concerning the deductibility against rental profits of the Non Principal Private residence charge (NPPR) has been appealed by them to the Court of Appeal. While that appeal is pending Revenue is not in a position to amend assessments or process repayment claims based on the High Court judgement.

Revenue further advises that there is a general right to repayment of tax provided for in Section 865 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, where a person has paid an amount of tax which is not due. However that right is subject to a statutory limit of four years from the end of the chargeable period to which the claim relates. That statutory limit is binding on Revenue.  Any repayment claims made in relation to this matter that are received within the statutory time limits, as they apply to each year of assessment, will be retained and processed when the outcome of the Appeal case is known.