Revenue introduce AEOs (Attachment of Earnings Orders). Court process bypassed.

Z

z107

Guest
I just got this in my inbox:
[broken link removed]

It looks like Revenue can now help themselves to tax payers' wages if there are any outstanding debts.

I would have thought such a drastic move would necessitate a referendum?

An example would be if you refuse to pay the new property tax, Revenue can just help themselves to your wages.
 
Revenue eBrief No. 86/11

28 December 2011

Attachment of Wages/Salaries under S.1002 TCA 1997

The Finance Act 2011 extended the power of attachment to wages/salaries in the enforcement of debt due to Revenue.
[broken link removed] (PDF, 1.53MB) for Attachment reflecting the Finance Act 2011 changes are published on the Revenue website at: Taxes & Duties - Tax & Duty Manuals Section 16 FOI Act - Collection - Enforcement - Guidelines for Attachment.
 
Thanks for that umop3p!sdn. Would you mind if i moved it to a more serious part of the board? Ive expanded the title a little.

aj
moderator
 
ajapale said:
Thanks for that umop3p!sdn. Would you mind if i moved it to a more serious part of the board? Ive expanded the title a little.

aj
moderator
Click to expand...

I would be happy for you to move it to where ever you deem more appropriate. The more people that know about this the better.

(I posted it in letting off steam because I thought it might be quite an emotive topic)

Thanks for expanding the title.
 
OP - I don't think you've read the guidelines ? This move only affects big amounts owing for a long time by people earning over50k -and loads of notice must be given.

Nobody could object to that.
 
[FONT=&quot]Seems absolutely reasonable to me. The Revenue, on behalf of citizens, can get money due from taxpayers who are refusing to pay.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
Attachment is used as an alternative to Sheriff or Solicitor enforcement and is speedy and cost effective.



Notices of Attachment can be issued only against ‘debtors to’ or ‘employer(s) of’ the taxpayer (attachee).


A Final Demand must have issued to the taxpayer prior to issuing a Notice of Attachment. There is a specific Final Demand that must issue where attachment of wages or salary is contemplated. This demand must be accompanied by a blank Financial Statement.


Attachment of wages or salary should only be considered where:

  • Total tax, interest & penalties due exceed €10,000, and
  • The amount due is overdue for a period of at least 6 months and
  • The defaulting taxpayer is currently earning in excess of €50,000 gross annually.
  • There are no other attachment options available, e.g. standard attachments of bank accounts.

Notices of Attachment should not issue until the time specified in the Final Demand has elapsed – minimum of 14 days in cases of attachment of wages or salary and minimum of 7 days for all other cases.
Click to expand...
 
Hasn't something similar been introduced regarding court fines?

There were huge complaints about people going to jail for non-payment of fines, so that was scrapped. So it was replaced by the power to take the fines from salaries or social welfare. Again, this seems like a very reasonable approach to me.

If someone refuses to pay their taxes or fines, it should be easy for the state to get the payment without having to pay huge fees to the legal profession.

Brendan
 
umop3p!sdn said:
An example would be if you refuse to pay the new property tax, Revenue can just help themselves to your wages.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I don't think that this is correct. If you refuse to pay your property tax, the Revenue can't seize it.

But if you are fined for not paying it, I think that the fine can be seized from you bank account. I hope that this is the case.
 
Surely the fine cannot be seized from one's wages/salaries under the Attachment thing under discussion -unless, of course, someone is fined over 10.000 euros for not paying property tax -plus they earn over 50.000.
Or have I misunderstood this?
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Unfortunately, I don't think that this is correct. If you refuse to pay your property tax, the Revenue can't seize it.

But if you are fined for not paying it, I think that the fine can be seized from you bank account. I hope that this is the case.
Click to expand...

An Attachment of Earnings order means that the money is taken from your wages before your wages goes into your bank account. Your employer takes the sum specified when processing the Payroll.

They have this system in the UK. It is used for collecting council tax and student loans etc.

Is it coincidence that they are introducing this in Ireland? Just as unpopular property and water taxes are being introduced?

Seems absolutely reasonable to me. The Revenue, on behalf of citizens, can get money due from taxpayers who are refusing to pay.
Click to expand...
Let's be clear on this. It is certainly NOT on behalf of the citizens. It is on behalf of the state.
 
I also have absolutely no problem with this. If people owe the money, have the resources and refuse to pay up then it should be deducted at source from their wages.
 
My problem with the proposal is that it bypasses the due process of the courts.

There is a long standing arrangement of garnishing earnings on foot of court order in force in ireland. This can be a bit of pain for payroll but it does exist.

If revenue want to attach earnings why dont they just go to court and obtain a court order like any one else.
 
Revenue could always attach sums due to self employed by their customers.
 
ajapale said:
My problem with the proposal is that it bypasses the due process of the courts.

There is a long standing arrangement of garnishing earnings on foot of court order in force in ireland. This can be a bit of pain for payroll but it does exist.

If revenue want to attach earnings why dont they just go to court and obtain a court order like any one else.
Click to expand...

It's a matter of cost and efficiency. How long would it take to get a court order? How much would it cost? How many adjournments could the taxpayer get?

The taxpayer would presumably have to pay the costs of the Revenue and so it only costs them more.

If someone is 6 months' late with the payment of their tax and if they have received a notice of the intention to seek an attachment, then there should be no need to involve anyone else in the process.
 
I'm thrilled - perhaps we could extend such measures to those parents who decline to pay their court-ordered child maintenance...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top