Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Feb 1997

Vol. 474 No. 4

Written Answers. - Property Revaluation.

Donal Moynihan

Question:

87 Mr. Moynihan asked the Minister for Finance the reason for the new scale of fees resulting in an increase of between 200 per cent and 400 per cent in the amount of fees charged to both owners and occupiers of property and local councils when seeking to appeal the result of a revision of a rateable valuation on a property which became effective from 1 January 1997. [3306/97]

Donal Moynihan

Question:

88 Mr. Moynihan asked the Minister for Finance his views on whether the increases in fees for revision of rateable valuation and appeals relating to rateable valuation of non-domestic premises, resulting in fees in excess of £1.2 million for the valuation office, are intended to raise moneys from the business community and local councils to fund the activities of the valuation office. [3307/97]

Donal Moynihan

Question:

90 Mr. Moynihan asked the Minister for Finance the reason for the increase of 500 per cent of the fees charged to owners and occupiers of new domestic premises when seeking revision of rateable valuation of their properties, which became effective from 1 January 1997. [3309/97]

Donal Moynihan

Question:

91 Mr. Moynihan asked the Minister for Finance his views on whether it is unfair to both owners and occupiers or the local council, where a premises is partly located in two or more rating units, hereditaments and where revision of rateable valuation is being sought, to be obliged to pay a full fee in respect of each rating unit, resulting in several fees being charged in some cases to have one commercial premise revalued. [3310/97]

Donal Moynihan

Question:

92 Mr. Moynihan asked the Minister for Finance the reason he imposed a 500 per cent increase in fees charged to local councils for seeking revaluation of commercial properties in their administrative areas; his views on whether this increase represents an intolerable burden on small businesses; and his views on whether the fees charged represent a form of double taxation on small businesses in view of the fact that they are required to pay a fee to have the rateable valuation of their property reassessed in addition to paying the resulting rate to their local councils. [3311/97]

Minister for Finance (Mr. Quinn)

As they are closely related, I propose to answer Questions Nos. 87, 88, 90, 91 and 92 together.

Fees for revision applications and for appeals to the Commissioner of Valuation in respect of determinations in respect of such applications were first introduced under the provisions of the 1988 Valuation Act. Fees for appeals to the newly established Valuation Tribunal were also set under the same Act.

The Commissioner of Valuation, who has immediate responsibility for the operation of the valuation system, proposed to me last year that a revised application fee of £100 be introduced. The Commissioner argued: the revision application fee of £20 was too small to deter the blanket listing of properties for revision where there may have been actually no reasonable or substantial grounds to expect that such revision applications would lead to a significant change in rateable valuations; and a higher fee would deter revision applications in respect of properties which pay no rates, particularly domestic property.

The blanket listing of properties where a revision application is unlikely to lead to a significant change in their rateable valuation and the listing of properties which are not liable to rates absorb a considerable amount of the Valuation Office's resources. The new fee level should encourage a more judicious listing of properties for revision, thus allowing the Valuation Office to deploy its resources towards revision applications where substantial issues have arisen and where considerable work is needed.

The Commissioner also argued that the income from fees represented only a fraction of the operating costs of the Valuation Office. In 1995 fees for revision applications represented about 7 per cent of the Valuation Office's staff costs. Given that the great bulk of the Valuation Office's resources is dedicated to processing revision applications, I considered that it was reasonable that a greater portion of the Valuation Office's costs should be recovered from its main clients i.e. ratepayers and rating authorities.

The arguments for increasing the fee for making a revision application also had a direct relevance for fees for making appeals to the Commissioner of Valuation and to the Valuation Tribunal. Again, quite a considerable amount of valuation office resources are being allocated to processing such appeals. The objective of the new level of appeal fees is to encourage ratepayers and rating authorities to confine appeals to cases where there are reasonable and substantial grounds for making appeals. It is also intended that a greater recovery be made of the costs to the Valuation Office of processing appeals.

I do not accept that fees for revision applications represent a form of double taxation on businesses. The fees are in respect of a service provided by the Valuation Office. Ratepayers generally make revision applications in the hope that lower rateable valuations resulting from such applications will produce lower rates liabilities.

I would also like to point out that notwithstanding the increases in appeal fees referred to by the Deputy, I have introduced a lower appeal fee level for properties with rateable valuations below £25. The objective of this lower level is to ensure that the appeals system is accessible for smaller businesses.

It is a central tenet of the valuation code that the unit of valuation is the tenement and each tenement must be valued separately. Situations can occur with regard to large commercial and industrial complexes in cities or large towns where the commercial or industrial premises comprises more than one tenement. Where this occurs, a fee per tenement applies. This situation rarely occurs with small businesses.