# Tax due for 2006 + surcharge



## greentree (2 Feb 2011)

I just got a letter from revenue that I owe them 190 euro from 2006. They also say I need to pay a surcharge of 240 euro.

Does this seem unusual to anyone? It seems a bit unfair to just drop this one one me! Are the Govt resorting to this due to the dire state of their finances?


----------



## mandelbrot (2 Feb 2011)

greentree said:


> I just got a letter from revenue that I owe them 190 euro from 2006. They also say I need to pay a surcharge of 240 euro.
> 
> Does this seem unusual to anyone? It seems a bit unfair to just drop this one one me! Are the Govt resorting to this due to the dire state of their finances?



You're gonna have to provide a bit more information to get a meaningful reply:

Are you self-assessed or a PAYE taxpayer?
When did you file your 2006 Tax Return?
Do you know how the €190 liability arose?
Didn't you ever get an assessment before now showing this amount due?
The surcharge should be a % of the total tax liability (either 5% / 10%) so that suggests that the total liability was €4800 / €2400?

As regards the "are the Govt resorting to this due to the dire state of their finances?" - firstly, surely it's Revenue, not "the Govt" - whoever they are these days! 
Secondly, "resorting" to what? - seeking to collect money thats due?


----------



## greentree (2 Feb 2011)

Thanks for the reply mandelbrot. Just a bit ****ed off that I am lumped with a bill over 4 years later that I cant really afford at the moment. Here's the answers to your questions:


Are you self-assessed or a PAYE taxpayer?* PAYE but am also a company director so I do a tax return each year.*
When did you file your 2006 Tax Return?* No idea, sometime in 2007 for sure*
Do you know how the €190 liability arose? *I just see an underpayment of tax on the form*
Didn't you ever get an assessment before now showing this amount due? *Not as far as I know*
The surcharge should be a % of the total tax liability (either 5% / 10%) so that suggests that the total liability was €4800 / €2400? *Yes, it was about 4800*

Secondly, "resorting" to what? - seeking to collect money thats due? 		
*Well, thats the thing. I ALWAYS pay my tax when its due, so I am just annoyed that I was not given the opportunity to pay this before a surcharge was applied.*


----------



## DB74 (3 Feb 2011)

The surcharge will be for a late submission, NOT for underpayment (there is a distinction)

If you filed the return late then a surcharge will be applaied

If you underpay then interest will be charged

So presumably you didn't actually file the return on time

If it was a couple of days late and you "ALWAYS" pay & file on time, a letter to Revenue stating that you are usually a tax compliant taxpayer then they may waive the surcharge


----------



## selfassessed (11 Feb 2011)

Current revenue policy appears to be to apply extremely harsh penalties for simple mistakes if you are self employed.  This presumably is much less effort for them than actually bothering to track down people who do not make any declarations at all. 

They argue this encourages compliance but it doesn't.  Any more than hanging people for stealing cars would cut down on joyriding.


----------



## mandelbrot (11 Feb 2011)

selfassessed said:


> Current revenue policy appears to be to apply extremely harsh penalties for simple mistakes if you are self employed.  This presumably is much less effort for them than actually bothering to track down people who do not make any declarations at all.



Are you familiar with this Revenue policy? Can you provide specific examples of what you're talking about? How harsh is "extremely harsh" in your opinion? And what do you mean by simple mistakes (example)? I presume you have an axe to grind if you're resurrecting a thread that petered out over a week ago...?


----------



## mandelbrot (11 Feb 2011)

selfassessed said:


> They argue this encourages compliance *but it doesn't.  Any more than hanging people for stealing cars would cut down on joyriding*.



Bit of a drastic comparison, but I would've thought that probably would cut down on joyriding - I mean eventually there'd be no joyriders left..?!


----------



## mandelbrot (12 Feb 2011)

mandelbrot said:


> I presume you have an axe to grind if you're resurrecting a thread that petered out over a week ago...?



And yes, having looked at your other 3 posts tonight I can see exactly what axe you're grinding...


----------



## z107 (12 Feb 2011)

Do you work for the Revenue or something mandelbrot?

A good rule of thumb is to always remember the Revenue are the enemy. Never trust them or expect to be treated fairly.


----------



## selfassessed (12 Feb 2011)

mandelbrot said:


> I presume you have an axe to grind if you're resurrecting a thread that petered out over a week ago...?



You got me there.  Guilty as charged.


----------



## mandelbrot (12 Feb 2011)

umop3p!sdn said:


> Do you work for the Revenue or something mandelbrot?
> 
> A good rule of thumb is to always remember the Revenue are the enemy. Never trust them or expect to be treated fairly.



Sorry, what does it matter who I work for?

And Revenue are only the enemy if you're inclined not to want to pay your taxes... Or maybe you feel the Gardaí, nurses, social welfare employees and the rest of the public sector are your enemies too?


----------



## z107 (12 Feb 2011)

> Sorry, what does it matter who I work for?


If you work for the Revenue then you are not impartial.


----------



## mandelbrot (12 Feb 2011)

umop3p!sdn said:


> If you work for the Revenue then you are not impartial.



Well what if I was a practice trained accountant who'd spent 7 of the last 8 years NOT working for Revenue, would I be any less impartial then? Or would I get brainwashed on my induction day?! Or maybe I'm even less trustworthy because I've switched sides?! 

I note you didn't bother addressing the other part of my earlier post... Are Revenue your enemy because you don't want to fulfil your end of the social contract, or is it the whole public sector, for stealing your money to pay their wages...?


----------



## z107 (12 Feb 2011)

> Or maybe I'm even less trustworthy because I've switched sides?!


So you do work for the Revenue then?



> Are Revenue your enemy because you don't want to fulfil your end of the social contract, or is it the whole public sector, for stealing your money to pay their wages


I didn't make any reference to any other section of the public sector, just the Revenue. This thread is about dealing with the Revenue, and my advice is to remember that they are the enemy. They are, after all, out to extract as much money as possible.

With regards 'Social Contract', I did not enter into any 'Social Contract'.

I pay my taxes not because of any perceived 'Social Contract' but because if I do not, then there will be menaces. I would rather not pay any taxes at all because I believe my tax money is misappropriated. However, I'm forced to pay, so I do. I am fully tax compliant.


----------



## selfassessed (13 Feb 2011)

mandelbrot said:


> Are you familiar with this Revenue policy? Can you provide specific examples of what you're talking about? How harsh is "extremely harsh" in your opinion? And what do you mean by simple mistakes (example)? I presume you have an axe to grind if you're resurrecting a thread that petered out over a week ago...?



Let's say I earned 500K a year (I wish) and so had a liability of I don't know say 200K.  I pay myself as a PAYE employee of my own company which is fully up to date in all PAYE and VAT returns.  I have overpaid tax in the year in question.  But I forgot to file my return and was 2 months late filing my return so I am fined €20,000.  Does this sound reasonable to you?

If I am lucky I can get this overturned but there is no policy that guarantees me that I will.  If I get the wrong official on the wrong day or maybe I get the wrong TD to "put in a good word" or whatever the fine sticks and policy says they can make it stick and the appeals process and the review process all support it.

Is this policy reasonable, consistent, unbiased, fair and equitable?


----------



## mandelbrot (13 Feb 2011)

selfassessed said:


> Let's say I earned 500K a year (I wish) and so had a liability of I don't know say 200K.  I pay myself as a PAYE employee of my own company which is fully up to date in all PAYE and VAT returns.  I have overpaid tax in the year in question.  But I forgot to file my return and was 2 months late filing my return so I am fined €20,000.  Does this sound reasonable to you?
> 
> If I am lucky I can get this overturned but there is no policy that guarantees me that I will.  If I get the wrong official on the wrong day or maybe I get the wrong TD to "put in a good word" or whatever the fine sticks and policy says they can make it stick and the appeals process and the review process all support it.
> 
> Is this policy reasonable, consistent, unbiased, fair and equitable?



No, it clearly isn't (in my opinion) - you'll see I suggested elsewhere (we appear to be having the same broad debate in several threads!) that it's obviously not right to surcharge tax that was paid at the correect time/manner.

But its not really about there being an explicit policy - if there were such an official policy it would allow people who are genuinely non-compliant, (such as a company director who hasn't been arsed to have the company pay some/all of his PAYE) to appeal on the grounds of inconsistency. So if there was going to be an official policy, it'd have to be that nobody's surcharge can be waived. So it has to be left to the judgement / discretion of the Inspector, unless one's preference would be for a totally robotic, inflexible and even more bureaucratic Revenue. So while I agree with the point you're making, I think it's not a policy change thats needed, its a legislative one.


----------



## mandelbrot (13 Feb 2011)

umop3p!sdn said:


> I didn't make any reference to any other section of the public sector, just the Revenue. This thread is about dealing with the Revenue, and my advice is to remember that they are the enemy. They are, after all, out to extract as much money as possible.



Not as much money as possible - as much as is owed, based on the legislation in force at any given time.


----------



## mandelbrot (13 Feb 2011)

umop3p!sdn said:


> With regards 'Social Contract', I did not enter into any 'Social Contract'.



I presume you are an Irish citizen who avails of public services... If so then you kind of have (in my opinion).


----------



## mandelbrot (13 Feb 2011)

umop3p!sdn said:


> I pay my taxes not because of any perceived 'Social Contract' but because if I do not, then there will be menaces. I would rather not pay any taxes at all because I believe my tax money is misappropriated. However, I'm forced to pay, so I do. I am fully tax compliant.



Nicely put, sorry I didn't think of that myself, as I totally agree with you.

But I still don't see how any of that makes Revenue my enemy!


----------



## T McGibney (14 Feb 2011)

mandelbrot said:


> I think it's not a policy change thats needed, its a legislative one.



You've hit the nail on the head. There's no point in blaming Revenue management or staff for the existence of crazy, disproportionate and punitive legislation. 

The person to blame for this is the Minister for Finance who introduced the legislation. Anyone care to guess who was the Minister in question?


----------



## T McGibney (14 Feb 2011)

mandelbrot said:


> I think it's not a policy change thats needed, its a legislative one.



You've hit the nail on the head. There's no point in blaming Revenue management or staff for the existence of crazy, disproportionate and punitive legislation. 

The person to blame for this is the Minister for Finance who introduced this legislation. Anyone care to guess who was the Minister in question?


----------



## DB74 (14 Feb 2011)

T McGibney said:


> You've hit the nail on the head. There's no point in blaming Revenue management or staff for the existence of crazy, disproportionate and punitive legislation.
> 
> The person to blame for this is the Minister for Finance who introduced this legislation. Anyone care to guess who was the Minister in question?


 
Irrespective of the legislation, if they wanted, Revenue could decide not to impose this surcharge, as a concession.

If they can waive it in one instance then it can be waived in all instances.


----------



## T McGibney (14 Feb 2011)

DB74 said:


> Irrespective of the legislation, if they wanted, Revenue could decide not to impose this surcharge, as a concession.



Correct in theory, but in practice if they did so, you would have politicians like Joan Burton shouting that 'Revenue are ignoring the law to suit big businessmen' or similar.


----------

