Revenue to issue updated LPT guidance

Revenue is to update its guidance on Local Property Tax (LPT) in the coming weeks, a Law Society conference has heard.

Joan Byrne (O'Flynn Exhams LLP) was speaking at the Law Society Conveyancing Committee's Property Law Update 2026 in Blackhall Place (28 October).

She is the convenor of a committee taskforce that has been engaging with Revenue on LPT.

Property History Summary

One pending change relates to the way exemptions showing on a taxpayer’s Property History Summary (PHS) will be treated, where an exemption from LPT has been claimed.

Previously, the PHS would have indicated an 'Exempt' status from the tax.

She said, however, that Revenue had advised that this meant only that an exemption had been claimed by the taxpayer, not that the tax authority had reviewed and verified it.

"That means that, if you just see 'exempt', the vendor must verify that exemption with Revenue before general clearance can apply on a sale," Byrne (main picture) stated.

New status options

After consultation, Revenue will now update its Tax and Duty Manual (TDM) on the tax in the coming weeks to introduce two new options in the status column on the PHS: 'Exemption Verified' and 'Exemption Not Verified'.

She pointed out that the seller could not use general clearance if the exemption claimed had not been verified.

The solicitor told the conference that, during the taskforce's regular engagement with Revenue, the tax body took on board feedback from solicitors, though the relevant legislation meant that it could not make all the changes that the profession requested.

Byrne said that it was important to remember that the only reason solicitors had to concern themselves with a client’s liability to LPT was that any unpaid tax could become a charge on a property.

She described the amount of time spent by conveyancers on LPT as "completely disproportionate" to the overall transaction.

Byrne urged practitioners to insist that clients deal with their own LPT compliance and have the necessary LPT documentation for the property ready to use in the conveyancing process.

Differing interpretations

Byrne also highlighted an issue with stamp duty on the sale of derelict properties, adding that Revenue sometimes had a different interpretation of 'residential property' from practitioners or their developer clients.

"If, at the moment, you are selling a derelict property, it would be quite reasonable to assume that it is not subject to LPT, which is correct.

"However, if the purchaser wants to purchase it as a residential derelict property and get the benefit of a 1% residential rate, then the vendor needs to register it with Revenue, and  get a property ID number for that property."

This did not mean that the property was liable for LPT, she added, but the buyer had to have an LPT property ID number for e-stamping.

New builds

In relation to new builds, Byrne also flagged Revenue's view that, where a newly built property was suitable for use as a dwelling on 1 November, it was liable for LPT for the following year, regardless of whether it was occupied (or sold).

She urged solicitors to make any developer clients aware that any such property should be registered for LPT by the client by filing a return in accordance with Revenue guidelines.

The 2027 LPT paid by the developer can subsequently be apportioned with the buyer in the usual way on closing.

Byrne also clarified an issue related to Condition 1 of general clearance that was raised by several attendees in a question-and-answer session.

From communications with Revenue, she confirmed that the requirement noted on the website and TDM stating that “The seller must also ensure the valuation band declared on 1 November 2025 reflects the ‘sale agreed’ price of the property” was not a requirement for Condition 1 and was relevant only to Condition 2.

Transfer of building estates

The conference also heard from committee member Paddy Sweetman, who told attendees that a revised Law Society precedent for the transfer of building estates was expected to be published later this year on the Law Society website.

Giving attendees a brief summary of the proposed document, he said that a taskforce on the issue was currently considering comments from Tailte Éireann.

Sweetman said that the new version – the first since 2010 – would not contain any "major substantive" changes.

Caution urged on equity-release schemes

Earlier, Deirdre Fox (principal, Deirdre Fox & Associates) provided an update on practice notes issued by the Conveyancing Committee over the past year, highlighting in particular guidance on a new Combined Building Agreement and Contract for Sale published in January.

She also pointed to a practice note on equity-release schemes issued earlier this year, telling the conference that it reflected the seriousness of the issues that could arise with such schemes.

These fall into two categories: lifetime mortgages and home reversions.

Her overriding message to practitioners was that "you must give full, proper advice in relation to the scheme to your client – and you must document it".

Fox warned that many of the products offered by different providers changed regularly.

In the case of lifetime mortgages, she told the conference that the event that triggered repayment could vary from one product to another.

Home reversions enable borrowers to sell an interest in their home, while retaining the right to live there during their lifetime.

Capacity

Fox told attendees that, as practitioners would often be dealing with elderly people in such cases, it was important to assess the capacity of the borrower, in the context of changes introduced by the Assisted Decision Making (Capacity) Act 2015.

She added that there was now a search function on the Decision Support Service (DSS) website to enable practitioners to see whether there was a decision-making agreement or arrangement in place.

The solicitor said that it was important to assess what the purpose of obtaining this loan was, as this could help to determine whether there was any duress or undue influence on the borrower.

She concluded that all the risks involved with such products should be made clear to the borrower.