Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension scheme.

[ubiquitous]

Re: Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension sche

How do you reckon the Revenue inspector would spin the tale to his mates in the pub?

For what its worth, Revenue DO negotiate discounted settlements on occasions in extreme cases. And it is not unknown for Revenue audit inspectors to opt not to pursue full assessment and collection of tax liabilities on occasions where there is genuine doubt over the taxpayer's ability to pay.

And finally, all Revenue staff are bound by strict confidentiality codes so even where these instances occur, you will never hear about them, except perhaps in aggregated form in the annual Comptroller & Auditor General Reports.

 

[RainyDay]

Re: Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension sche

You got my clarification, ignored it and continued with disingenuous posts.

I'm thoroughly confused. I just can't reconcile 'everyone went into this with their eyes open' & 'all happy to play fast & loose with the rules' with your claim that you agree with the substance of my post. These two positions are miles apart.

By the way, my post came after your one where you has veered away from just asking a question. At that point I agreed with the substance of your post, as I continue to do, but simply questioned the tone.

You've questioned a lot more than tone, and you haven't been short of a little tone yourself. Pots & kettles spring to mind.

But this is getting painfully tedious now. Let's kiss & make up. I'm sure we both have better things to do.

For what its worth, Revenue DO negotiate discounted settlements on occasions in extreme cases. And it is not unknown for Revenue audit inspectors to opt not to pursue full assessment and collection of tax liabilities on occasions where there is genuine doubt over the taxpayer's ability to pay.

I don't doubt that Revenue will negotiate discounts in extreme circumstances. Indeed, there was public outcry when they agreed a discount for CJH some time back. However, the spin from the other poster of 'He could pay a token contribution and they could write the rest off' is a very different angle, and suspect there was considerable bravado boasting involved in that story.

And finally, all Revenue staff are bound by strict confidentiality codes so even where these instances occur, you will never hear about them, except perhaps in aggregated form in the annual Comptroller & Auditor General Reports.

Yes, just as doctors/Gardai/teachers/nurses are also bound by confidentiality, and we've all heard their stories (without identifying the individuals involved of course). I'd be very surprised if Revenue staff NEVER told an occasional story out of school, without identifying individuals involved.

 

[ubiquitous]

Sorry, I see where you're coming from now.

I know many business people who have been through Revenue Audits. Such an experience is not exactly something that any sane person would brag about, even if the outcome is favourable or relatively so.

 

[Purple]

Re: Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension sche

I'm thoroughly confused. I just can't reconcile 'everyone went into this with their eyes open' & 'all happy to play fast & loose with the rules' with your claim that you agree with the substance of my post. These two positions are miles apart.

It's all about context. I agreed with the substance of your post and then made comments on a different post making more general point about the building industry. If you don't get that then you are just going to have to accept that there are some things that you don't understand
You are quite right about one thing though; we both do have better things to do.